In what way does denying the holocaust violate Jewish people's freedom of conscience and religion? They are free to hold whatever views they wish regadless of what anybody says about the holocaust, and they're rqually free to practice their religion.
More significantly, in what way is it not a violation of a person's freedom of conscience to prevent him from claiming that the holocaust never happened?
The funniest bit in your post is the claim that denying the holocaust somehow constitutes "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment", or that it's somehow an attack upon a person's "right to life, liberty and security of the person"
That means that, as I understand copyright law, they have no right to have even installed the software, and so are infringing on Sharman Network's copyright.
No. Copyright law deals with such things as copying, distribution, public performance, etc. Violating an EULA does not necessarily involve copyright infringement. For instance, if you download a sofware package from the publisher's web site and later violate the license, you are not in violation of copyright unless the license violation involves one of the activities forbidden by copyright law.
Sender's-option email stamps are an interesting idea, but the last thing I want is to open an account with an MS "stamp" server, which would probably require a Passport account. The last thing I want to see is for Passport to become a de facto standard for login and authentication.
I would rather be charged by my ISP (who would in turn be charged by one of several trusted providers of digital stamps). This way I am not required to give my credit card info to anybody else in order to send emails to friends and contacts.
Of course, it's important for such a system that the recepient be the one to decide whether stamps are required. Mail relays shouldn't block unstamped emails, and ISPs shouldn't block them without the user's explicit consent. Instead, I should be able to set up my mail client and/or mail account to either accept or reject "unstamped" email messasges.
If they found contraband (kiddie porn,
talk of drugs, or stuff they were actually looking for), that particular computer would never be coming home.
Now, let me get this straight. If you've ever sent an email to a friend where you talk about smoking some pot, the FBI gets to keep your computer? What if you're talking about how pot should be legalized? It seems like they get to keep the computer without ever having to convince a judge that they have a legitimate reason to do so.
This isn't a case of the search results including related goods; here the website brings up a paid-for banner advertisement: "Some consumers, initially seeking Playboy's sites, may initially believe that unlabeled banner advertisements are links to Playboy's sites...Once they follow the instructions to 'click here,' and they access the site, they may well realize that they are not at a Playboy-sponsored site."
In other words, there is little or chance of confusion once the customer follows the unlabeled link.
Why the hell did Google let Debenhams brazenly advertise under their competitor's name?
The fact that you can identify Debenhams, and not Jenners, as the source of the ad should clue you in to the fact that they're not advertising under Debenhams' name, as such. In other words, there is no opportunity for confusion.
This should be no more illegal than Avid placing an ad for Softimage in the middle of an article on Alias|Wavefront's Maya.
I'm curious. Could anybody please clear up what it is gives WIPO the authority to decide upon cybersquatting issues? Is it a voluntary thing or is it somehow required by law?
"The state laws make it easier to prosecute individuals caught in theaters because the charges focus simply on the operation of a camera -- avoiding the more prickly details of federal copyright law."
Does anybody have a link to these laws? I seems to me these laws are overbroad for making it a criminal offense to simply operate a video camera in a movie theater. What if I'm videotaping a public domain movie? What if I'm videotaping my family, without taking a single shot of the movie screen?
I also can't help but wonder whether the law goes beyond the mere operation of a video camera. Could I be jailed on suspicion of wanting to copy a movie? What if I want to bring my camcorder into the movie theater so it doesn't melt in my car?
In addition to Microsoft's contracts with OEMs, which give Microsoft an unfair advantage over its competitors, another problem is the lack of interoperability. The lack of interoperability does much greater harm to consumer choice than bundling; indeed, bundling is problematic because of interoperability issues (at least in part). After all, if the Windows Media Player file formats were open, Windows Media Player could easily be replaced by QuickTime Player, xine, mplayer, or any of the numerous media players already available to consumers.
I would support a decision requiring Microsoft to document fully every aspect of its proprietary file formats. So long as users are able to play their music and videos using non-Microsoft software, it should matter little whether Windows Media Player is included with Windows or not.
When will governments learn? Just as the US government crippled its antitrust case against microsoft by focusing on bundling rather than on Microsoft's contracts with OEMs, the European Union is making the same mistake. It's not the bundling that's the problem, it's Microsoft's stranglehold over the OEM market that's the problem. Address that instead of forcing them to remove a useful part of the Windows bundle.
That said, I do wish that governments would do something about preserving fair use in a world full of DRM software. While Windows Media Player may itself contribute to restrictions on fair use, it is by no means the only mechanism - nor even the primary mechanism - through which DRM content will be delivered. DRM is a great deal more dangerous than the bundling of media player software. The EU makes a big fuss about Windows Media Player, but what are they doing to mitigate the negative effects of DRM? Nothing at all.
The "trusted party" is indeed the software, but whose software, exactly?
The point I'm making is that it's usually the user/client who must show that the software he is running on his computer may be trusted by third parties. I'm suggesting that establishing such trust relationships is the primary purpose of the trusted computing initiative, more so than users establishing trust relationships with their own software (it's easier to fool the user than it is to fool a third party's computer).
Trusted computing is being promoted as a computer platform that users can trust, but it's really more about creating a platform where third parties can determine whether the users themselves can be trusted.
Trusted computing benefits content producers and service providers more than it benefits users. The reason is that producers and providers are usually the ones whose systems are being acessed, while the users are the ones accessing these well-known systems. It is the nature of the transaction that trusted computing will favor the well-known party over the party that is "anonymous".
I refuse to buy e-books because of the way DRM schemes restrict fair use. DRM means you can never really own most ebooks, and I refuse to buy something I cannot move freely and without intervention from device to device. I'd only make exceptions for things which are indispensable.
Think, for instance, a high-school teacher acessing the internet from his house. Why the hell would this person need access to port X Y or Z?
Have you ever heard of Instant Messaging and Peer to Peer? How do you set up an IM or P2P connection unless at least one of the clients can accept incoming connections?
As for licensing, there's many a good reason to do so. Anywere were quality, or safety issues rein (would you want an unlicensed doctor operating on you?). They also exist (licenses) because amateurs have ruined it for others (few bad apples...barrel...you know the rest).
A careful analysis of licensing's effects across a broad range of occupations reveals some striking, and strikingly negative, similarities. Occupational regulation has limited consumer choice, raised consumer costs, increased practitioner income, limited practitioner mobility, and deprived the poor of adequate services--all without demonstrated improvements in the quality or safety of the licensed activities.
The ACM's position on the licensing of software Engineers is that licensing - even for safety reasons - is neither effective nor desirable. A similar perspective on licensing in general may be found here.
If these systems have failed to mitigate SPAM it's because of a lack of widespread adoption, not because the systems themselves have "failed" to mitigate SPAM. I'm sure they'd be reasonably effective if widely adopted.
SMTP doesn't know about the From and To fields? What do you mean? SMTP requires that users specify a From and To field, and while it might not respond immediately with information about the validity of an email address, it is nevertheless possible for SMTP servers to establish the validity of an email address. My server, for instance, does this:
helo caribe.net
250 OK mail from: me@caribe.net 250 me@caribe.net OK rcpt to: nosuchuser@caribe.net 550 is not a valid mailbox
SMTP seems like the natural place to verify the validity of a mailbox, but ultimately it could just as easily be implemented as a separate service.
It would not require certificates. I can easily generate my own public keys using GPG, and I could easily send those keys to each of the servers where I have an email account. No need for crypto certificates at all.
I think the SPAM problem could be largely mitigated by altering the SMTP protocol to include cryptographic signatures which are used to authenticate the email address listed in the email's "From" field. The receiving SMTP server contacts the server listed in the From field to obtain a copy of the claimed sender's public key which the receiving server uses to authenticate the sender's true identity. The public key is user-settable so that alternate From addresses may be used as long as the sender is authorized to use that address in From fields.
I'm not sure I understand the issue. Does Java's "import" statement incorporate any of the library's copyrighted content into the program being distributed? If it doesn't then my opinion is that the LGPL should NOT apply unless the LGPL'd library itself is distributed along with the program. If the library is distributed with the program, or if the program contains a portion of the LGPL library, then of course it should be treated like linking any program to an LGPL library.
Did you not read the sentence where I wrote "for all that is wrong about the US"? The issue at hand is not the United States' policies on war, the issue is how Europe lacks the kinds of free speech protections that the United States enjoys.
You're attempting to defend the european approach to this issue by pointing to problems with the present administration of the United States. A thief may point fingers at a murderer, but it makes him no less a thief.
No, your use of the word "advertising", as if it has to go on the homepage, is an exaggeration not present in the proposal.
The word "advertise" has several meanings. From Meriam-Webster:
1: to make something known to : NOTIFY
2 a : to make publicly and generally known b : to announce publicly especially by a printed notice or a broadcast c : to call public attention to especially by emphasizing desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize : PROMOTE
intransitive senses : to issue or sponsor advertising
So it's perfectly correct to say that the proposal requires a party to advertise the link by putting it in a prominent place for at least 24 hours.
"Prominent place" should probably be interpreted in the light of the very next paragraph...
No. You're conflating separate issues. The first deals with the availability and visibility of the reply (24 hours, prominent place), the second deals with how the reply should be associated with the original article. If the article is no longer in a prominent place when the reply is issued then it seems like this proposal would require that either the reply be issued its own prominent place, or that the article be reissued with the reply appended to it. Doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
This isn't about settling disagreements; nobody is pretending that is possible.
I never said it was about settling disagreements, but since disagreements will undoubtedly occur they're an important consideration. Just as the right of reply could be used to promote clarity, it could just as well be used to promote confusion with replies designed to muddle the issue rather than settle the facts. This would require additional clarification by the original author, which might in turn prompt a new reply with further invalid rebuttals.
It's an unreasonable standard to require people to entertain the unreasonable positions held by another. If I write an article criticizing John Edward (the alleged psychic who was spoofed in a South Park cartoon), why should it be my burden to provide him with a soapbox where he can issue a rebuttal that is designed to promote his own deceptive agenda? Or imagine what publishers of articles criticizing creationism would have to go through. Why should such a publisher be forced to entertain the creationists ridiculous rebuttals? Let them find their own soapbox!
The proposal addresses neither issue directly. However, as a practical matter that won't happen, because the link being pointed to can be changed as necessary to update new conditions; new links will not need to be continuously posted so that's a bugaboo.
The problem is not about a multiplicity of links, but about theoretically endless arguments and counter-arguments. I shouldn't be forced to post and respond to your replies (and have this go on until either one of us decides to give up!).
You say providing a link is not a burden, but you forget that you have to prominently advertise that link for at least 24 hours. Another problem is that, even with links, disagreements are not easily settled by a single reply. How far should the right to reply be taken? Do I have the right to reply to your reply, and you to reply in turn... this to be repeated ad infinitum? Or will I be forced to offer a link to your reply even when your reply contains false information and misleading assessments of my own criticism? After all, the "offended party" is as capable of lying as anybody else. The proposal pretty ridiculous, and I'm glad that kind of thing is unconstitutional in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
In what way does denying the holocaust violate Jewish people's freedom of conscience and religion? They are free to hold whatever views they wish regadless of what anybody says about the holocaust, and they're rqually free to practice their religion.
More significantly, in what way is it not a violation of a person's freedom of conscience to prevent him from claiming that the holocaust never happened?
The funniest bit in your post is the claim that denying the holocaust somehow constitutes "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment", or that it's somehow an attack upon a person's "right to life, liberty and security of the person"
That means that, as I understand copyright law, they have no right to have even installed the software, and so are infringing on Sharman Network's copyright.
No. Copyright law deals with such things as copying, distribution, public performance, etc. Violating an EULA does not necessarily involve copyright infringement. For instance, if you download a sofware package from the publisher's web site and later violate the license, you are not in violation of copyright unless the license violation involves one of the activities forbidden by copyright law.
Did I actually say "sender's option"? Timothy's writeup confused me. It should probably be called "recipient's option", not "sender's option"
Sender's-option email stamps are an interesting idea, but the last thing I want is to open an account with an MS "stamp" server, which would probably require a Passport account. The last thing I want to see is for Passport to become a de facto standard for login and authentication.
I would rather be charged by my ISP (who would in turn be charged by one of several trusted providers of digital stamps). This way I am not required to give my credit card info to anybody else in order to send emails to friends and contacts.
Of course, it's important for such a system that the recepient be the one to decide whether stamps are required. Mail relays shouldn't block unstamped emails, and ISPs shouldn't block them without the user's explicit consent. Instead, I should be able to set up my mail client and/or mail account to either accept or reject "unstamped" email messasges.
This should be no more illegal than Avid placing an ad for Softimage in the middle of an article on Alias|Wavefront's Maya.
I'm curious. Could anybody please clear up what it is gives WIPO the authority to decide upon cybersquatting issues? Is it a voluntary thing or is it somehow required by law?
I also can't help but wonder whether the law goes beyond the mere operation of a video camera. Could I be jailed on suspicion of wanting to copy a movie? What if I want to bring my camcorder into the movie theater so it doesn't melt in my car?
In addition to Microsoft's contracts with OEMs, which give Microsoft an unfair advantage over its competitors, another problem is the lack of interoperability. The lack of interoperability does much greater harm to consumer choice than bundling; indeed, bundling is problematic because of interoperability issues (at least in part). After all, if the Windows Media Player file formats were open, Windows Media Player could easily be replaced by QuickTime Player, xine, mplayer, or any of the numerous media players already available to consumers.
I would support a decision requiring Microsoft to document fully every aspect of its proprietary file formats. So long as users are able to play their music and videos using non-Microsoft software, it should matter little whether Windows Media Player is included with Windows or not.
When will governments learn? Just as the US government crippled its antitrust case against microsoft by focusing on bundling rather than on Microsoft's contracts with OEMs, the European Union is making the same mistake. It's not the bundling that's the problem, it's Microsoft's stranglehold over the OEM market that's the problem. Address that instead of forcing them to remove a useful part of the Windows bundle.
That said, I do wish that governments would do something about preserving fair use in a world full of DRM software. While Windows Media Player may itself contribute to restrictions on fair use, it is by no means the only mechanism - nor even the primary mechanism - through which DRM content will be delivered. DRM is a great deal more dangerous than the bundling of media player software. The EU makes a big fuss about Windows Media Player, but what are they doing to mitigate the negative effects of DRM? Nothing at all.
The "trusted party" is indeed the software, but whose software, exactly?
The point I'm making is that it's usually the user/client who must show that the software he is running on his computer may be trusted by third parties. I'm suggesting that establishing such trust relationships is the primary purpose of the trusted computing initiative, more so than users establishing trust relationships with their own software (it's easier to fool the user than it is to fool a third party's computer).
Trusted computing is being promoted as a computer platform that users can trust, but it's really more about creating a platform where third parties can determine whether the users themselves can be trusted.
Trusted computing benefits content producers and service providers more than it benefits users. The reason is that producers and providers are usually the ones whose systems are being acessed, while the users are the ones accessing these well-known systems. It is the nature of the transaction that trusted computing will favor the well-known party over the party that is "anonymous".
I refuse to buy e-books because of the way DRM schemes restrict fair use. DRM means you can never really own most ebooks, and I refuse to buy something I cannot move freely and without intervention from device to device. I'd only make exceptions for things which are indispensable.
The ACM's position on the licensing of software Engineers is that licensing - even for safety reasons - is neither effective nor desirable. A similar perspective on licensing in general may be found here.
If these systems have failed to mitigate SPAM it's because of a lack of widespread adoption, not because the systems themselves have "failed" to mitigate SPAM. I'm sure they'd be reasonably effective if widely adopted.
It would not require certificates. I can easily generate my own public keys using GPG, and I could easily send those keys to each of the servers where I have an email account. No need for crypto certificates at all.
I think the SPAM problem could be largely mitigated by altering the SMTP protocol to include cryptographic signatures which are used to authenticate the email address listed in the email's "From" field. The receiving SMTP server contacts the server listed in the From field to obtain a copy of the claimed sender's public key which the receiving server uses to authenticate the sender's true identity. The public key is user-settable so that alternate From addresses may be used as long as the sender is authorized to use that address in From fields.
I'm not sure I understand the issue. Does Java's "import" statement incorporate any of the library's copyrighted content into the program being distributed? If it doesn't then my opinion is that the LGPL should NOT apply unless the LGPL'd library itself is distributed along with the program. If the library is distributed with the program, or if the program contains a portion of the LGPL library, then of course it should be treated like linking any program to an LGPL library.
Did you not read the sentence where I wrote "for all that is wrong about the US"? The issue at hand is not the United States' policies on war, the issue is how Europe lacks the kinds of free speech protections that the United States enjoys.
You're attempting to defend the european approach to this issue by pointing to problems with the present administration of the United States. A thief may point fingers at a murderer, but it makes him no less a thief.
So it's perfectly correct to say that the proposal requires a party to advertise the link by putting it in a prominent place for at least 24 hours.No. You're conflating separate issues. The first deals with the availability and visibility of the reply (24 hours, prominent place), the second deals with how the reply should be associated with the original article. If the article is no longer in a prominent place when the reply is issued then it seems like this proposal would require that either the reply be issued its own prominent place, or that the article be reissued with the reply appended to it. Doesn't seem very reasonable to me.I never said it was about settling disagreements, but since disagreements will undoubtedly occur they're an important consideration. Just as the right of reply could be used to promote clarity, it could just as well be used to promote confusion with replies designed to muddle the issue rather than settle the facts. This would require additional clarification by the original author, which might in turn prompt a new reply with further invalid rebuttals.
It's an unreasonable standard to require people to entertain the unreasonable positions held by another. If I write an article criticizing John Edward (the alleged psychic who was spoofed in a South Park cartoon), why should it be my burden to provide him with a soapbox where he can issue a rebuttal that is designed to promote his own deceptive agenda? Or imagine what publishers of articles criticizing creationism would have to go through. Why should such a publisher be forced to entertain the creationists ridiculous rebuttals? Let them find their own soapbox!The problem is not about a multiplicity of links, but about theoretically endless arguments and counter-arguments. I shouldn't be forced to post and respond to your replies (and have this go on until either one of us decides to give up!).
If I lie, sue me. If I don't, fend for yourself.
You say providing a link is not a burden, but you forget that you have to prominently advertise that link for at least 24 hours. Another problem is that, even with links, disagreements are not easily settled by a single reply. How far should the right to reply be taken? Do I have the right to reply to your reply, and you to reply in turn... this to be repeated ad infinitum? Or will I be forced to offer a link to your reply even when your reply contains false information and misleading assessments of my own criticism? After all, the "offended party" is as capable of lying as anybody else. The proposal pretty ridiculous, and I'm glad that kind of thing is unconstitutional in the US.