It's not the only time. Double jeopardy (sp) protection doesn't really exist. There is this BS, cockamamie thing wherein you can get hit twice: once civilly, and once criminally.
Now, I don't have too much of a problem with that when there are two different aggrieved parties. Or when something clearly causes both a civil tort and breaks a rational, criminal law (this latter to differentiate from the DMCA).
What is new and dangerous is precisely what you have pointed out: corporate enforcement. In this instance, the Adobe Corp. was the only company to potentially suffer a loss. Criminal law is supposed to protect society. The DMCA does not achieve this effect. It protects (in this instance) one specific member of society. The case will likely be tried very similarly as one that Adobe would bring themselves, with only two differences: a change in evidentiary standard (which is so wildly open to speculation on the part of judges and juries as to be inconsequential, and therefore a totally moot difference) and the possibility of jail-time. Ooh. There's the biggie.
Copy a CD, go to jail (after all, you've kept Britney from getting another boob job).
Now, it's time for everyone who said "maybe we were too hard on Adobe for the Killustrator thing" to change your mind again. Adobe sucks. They always have. They always will.
According to the URL's in the news box at the top, the publishing of the work wasn't even done in the US. I agree (But IANAL. I haven't been 15 in several years) that this guy should be clear. But I believe Jon Johannsen may have some relevant stories to tell.
If the guy developed the software in the US, it should be protected. If he gave a talk about it, it is protected. If he published it IN RUSSIA, then it is up to the Russian authorities to determine if he broke the law.
Of course, it should be no surprise. If the UK can demand that the US eliminate the 2nd amendment, and the US can demand Columbia etc. stop sending drugs into the US, what's to say that it's not okay to arrest people for breaking US laws in other countries? The logic almost follows, and in this instance, given the supra-national corporation (and although Adobe ain't much, I'm sure some developing nations would absolutely love that much cash) that is at the heart of this matter, this is likely to become more common.
Bleh. Mod me -1, a ranting, poorly written diatribe.
In my way of thinking, this makes the actions of the German law firm even lame. In what manner was the law firm protecting the public from purchasing the wrong thing? I suppose if Germany is one of those countries where there is metered internet access, but if it's 30 DM per month unlimited, what exactly is the public risk?
It also seems to be a bit of a vigilante type system. Why not let the goverment do this, with an impartial trying of fact? I assume that were the University to refuse to pay (or the Dr.) that the law firm would go to court. I then assume that it is nearly impossible to get a court to disagree with the law firm. At least, in the US, that's the way it would work.
(BTW, I'm a USian. This is my analysis of your laws. If anyone reads this and says "fuck you, we do things our own way" I reply "fuck you, you certainly don't shut your yap and avoid criticizing our laws". It's a two way street. Let's face it, the laws in EVERY country are fucked up.)
You're building a cool toy, and didn't provide a URL? C'mon, c'mon, c'mon. Let me see it!
:)
Seriously, any good links (yes, I could hit google, but I'm guessing that you have progressed beyond the sniffing butt stage of a new project, and have some good sites stashed in your bookmarks.)
Back on topic: there is a good site (lost the URL) by one of the teams that states how and why the stocking is done. Basically, they don't give *exactly* what the experts ask for. Typically something requires a bit of bodging. For example, the dragster with no forward gears in the tranny. Lack of props. Etc.
Why? Have you ever been to a junkyard? Most of the good bits are already gone. You will almost never find a working (or potentially working) motor in a junkyard. That stuff gets picked out (as do almost all of the usable bits) and the only thing the public can see and crawl over are bare carcasses. (Of course, if you read Car Craft or Hot Rod, the planet is covered with wonderful junkyards that you can enter, and find a perfect 455 Olds engine for a mere $25. As a matter of fact, according to them, there are so many 350 Chevy engines that you have to carry one away when you leave the junkyard. Maybe in So. Cal., but on the East Coast? Bullshit.)
Wish I had mentioned this in my earlier rant (message 30). Why the hell isn't this show reliably captioned? Why, why, why? It seems that the last British season is, but not the first US season (and the world series also was not captioned).
Battlebots is captioned. (Robot Wars UK is not). Are You Being Served is captioned. Fawlty Towers is not. Half the weird stuff on Sci-Fi is captioned (and what the hell is up with that show they put on at 8:00???) Why can't current episodes of Junkyard Wars be captioned?
Now, before anyone gets the idea that I'm one of those Deaf Community, ADA nuts, I'm not. My wife is hearing impaired, with a cochlear implant, effectively shutting us out of the 'Deaf community'. (Not to mention that she married a hearing man). And she watches JYW sometimes. Like... When it is captioned!! And she truly get's a kick out of it, but not enough to make time for it.
More important than my wife is the schools. If TLC wants to be in more, they are going to have to caption more stuff. Some school districts have requirements that captioning is available. And as others have pointed out, JYW is a not bad science/applied engineering problem.
Finally, that giant sledgehammer the Americans made was cool as shit. I really liked the British team (Hey, all those bikers? Can't go wrong) and I bet Nosh would have had a helluva good time bashing his own machine with the Americans killer sledge.
There's no problem a big enough hammer won't solve.
Fortunately, the Emmy's (and Oscar's) are not always the popularity contest that the Billboard, MTV, People's Choice, etc. awards are. There is a chance (albeit slim) that Scrapheap Challenge could pull this off.
But, to be fair, isn't Road Rules the only original show in the bunch? Junkyard Wars (as I implied) is a re-edit of Scrapheap Challenge. Can't remember the geneology of Survivor, but that may be original as well. And shouldn't 'The Real World' have been included before Road Rules?
Still, it's nice to see a new category. I only wish they had never invented the animated series category. The Simpsons should have been up against comedies. Why separate it because it's animated? Of course, it probably never would have won, but it certainly contributes to the public's low opinion of animated shows.
A few other comments:
WB, why push a show that you are not going to have any more? Of course, UPN would love it, but it doesn't make sense to complain. Oh, and BTW, the reason you didn't get any nominations is because your network is full of repetitive drivel. Please don't tell me you think a 'very special episode of Seventh Heaven' is deserving of an award (and BTW, I watched it for several years, and have nothing wrong with the show. Nice, moralistic family 'drama'. But it doesn't do or say anything. It certainly doesn't push any boundaries or do anything in an exemplary manner.)
And yes, 'Catcher in the Rye' IS a dime-store paperback. Even at 16, I thought this kid was a whining sniveller. I don't know about anyone else, but even as a geeky teen, I didn't have that much time to be doing a bunch of navel gazing like good old Holden Caufield. Get over yourself, man.
(And let's not even talk about his 'odd' relationship and thoughts about his sister. I think I saw that on Jerry Springer a few weeks ago.)
You're totally right. I had forgotten about that. Makes things even worse.
Now, I wonder if I can get Maryland to get the tobacco companies to give me coupons for free cigarettes. I'll even bring them several pounds of 'defective' smokes ("Yeah, look at this, I burned it, sucked on it, and all that is left is this little cotton bit. I want a new one.")
I thought there were costs built into blank CDs to offset some of thus. Does this mean the prices of blanks will decrease?
Also, since this wonderful copy protection prevents piracy, will the cost of a CD go down because of the increase in revenue on more sales of "originals"?
LOL. Hahahaha! Man, that is the funniest shit I've heard in a long time.
No, you were right the first time. You bought the CD. Last time I checked, you didn't sign some B$ license saying you only bought the right to use the data on the disc in some proscribed manner.
Don't expect this to last, though. Sooner or later, Congress (and/or the courts) of the US will change this to saying that you did NOT buy the tangible property, you merely licensed the data on it for specific uses.
You ripped a perfect copy. If you burn the copy, warts and all, wouldn't it still play identically to the copy that you bought? I haven't read the article (unusual on/., eh?) but I don't think this tech should preclude doing that.
It's like some of the old copy-protection schemes for computer games: if you copy the disc, warts and all, you were successful (Yes, I remember that sometimes that only worked on REALLY good floppy drives, and under some other circumstances, but the last ditch effort in copying a game was just to do a damned good bit-by-bit copy)
To the end user (plaintiff) the individual suit is usually better. But it's a tangled web:
If I sue Sony in small claims court and win, great. But there is an up and a down. Up is, I win, and it wasn't too expensive. Down is that there really isn't any precedent that is applicable to you (unless you live in Charles Co. MD, USA)
But, it probably won't happen. From what I heard somewhere (and not only am INAL, I'm Not a Good Listener:) Sony will likely try to get the case moved to some larger court.
Okay, let's say that it goes to a larger court. I need a lawyer to make my $15 claim. He doesn't want to do work for a contingency fee of $5, so he says "how 'bout a class action?" So we get a bazillion people to sue Sony. Sony says no, but really means yes (to the class action, that is). We're going to pay the same amount of lawyers (companies like that don't have small court cases) and take care of a bazillion cases. So immediately, they have saved a bazillion*(number of cases-1) dollars.
So, I win my $10. I may or may not have to pay my attorney's fees. And my attorney gets fees + bazillion*$5 (he's getting a contingency on all members of the class).
So, 'my' attorney wins, Sony wins, and everyone else loses.
Pretty shitty system, huh?
(Of course, there are many other ways that this can happen, but Sony knows that the real costs are attorneys, not plaintiffs. If they want class action, or a quick settlement, it should automatically mean that that is not in your favor as a plaintiff.)
Funny thing for me is that I only have two CDs that are badly trashed and that I would have liked to have had backed up. One is Prince (1999, I believe) and the other is Metallica (black album). Guess which one I likely won't replace?
(FWIW, I've been collecting CDs since 1985 or 1986 when my father got his first CD player. Single disc JVC. ~$400, marked down from $700.)
Despite all the kvetching, the BSD license (especially with one of those 'advertisement clauses') could have made this a moot point. There's also no reason they couldn't have printed a GPL with an onerous advertisement clause.
Get over it. If one product is better than the other, than the market will choose it, the 'lesser' product will bring in the new code, and we'll start all over again.
Anyway, nobody is buying the fscking code. Who gives a rat's ass?
Is this a real thing, or did some dipshit VC put these guys (all of them) up to these lawsuits?
Except that sometimes only the dexo-rotary appears naturally, and only the levo-rotary (hope those two terms are right. It's been nine years since organic) can be made. Or vice-versa.
First off, you make sense, 100%. Your point is well taken, and I agree with it.
But your supporting case is a very weak one. Unfortunately, in the United States, not only could that apartment owner be sued criminally, but he could forfeit the building WITHOUT a hearing of any sort.
His ability (or lack thereof) to know about the activity doesn't matter. If illegal drugs are found on property, that property is forfeit. No trial, no appeals. Bend over and kiss your apartment, house, car goodbye.
I think that the agreement to which I referred was the result of the lawsuit to which you referred. But there may have been a second suit. But you are right, the second suit (if there was one) should have been about 1991.
Unfortunately, I added some stuff to my original post that would have indicated that I was playing devil's advocate. Guess they got knackered. Sorry.
But anyhoo, this is an important question: IS there an OS market? Does someone actually choose between FreeBSD and Win2k? Hurd and Linux? QNX and WinME?
If you think not (and on the desktop, I think I'm right) then Killustrator is not a competitor. OTOH, if there is a market (and it seems that there is not. M$ has mind and marketshare, except among a few of us freaks) then yes, the two products do compete.
As an example... Let's say that GM creates a car called the SuperHawk (a replacement for the SuperChicken, perhaps). Can Honda sue? It depends. Both are transportation products, but one is a car, one is a bike.
Similarly, Killustrator is a Linux (forgive me if it's also available for BSD, et al.) product, and Illustrator is a Win/Mac product.
Those are the arguments that could be made. I agree with some, disagree with others. But in the end, regardless of the right and wrong of it, the expeditious thing to do, if the software is an end, and not a means to social change, is change the name.
Someone said KINI (KINI Is Not Illustrator). I like it. And you'd have to be a complete rube (or perhaps 'your honor') in order to confuse the two.
Actually, McIntosh is a fruit. Macintosh is a computer.
Most interestingly, Apple is a recording studio. Apple (the computer company) introduced the 'sosumi' beep after essentially reneging on their agreement to not put sound editing/recording on the Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
They won't give us an Emmy nomination? Well, they can go screw themselves. Let's prevent them from taping Buffy!!
(We don't have that anymore, sir)
Well... Shit.
It's not the only time. Double jeopardy (sp) protection doesn't really exist. There is this BS, cockamamie thing wherein you can get hit twice: once civilly, and once criminally.
Now, I don't have too much of a problem with that when there are two different aggrieved parties. Or when something clearly causes both a civil tort and breaks a rational, criminal law (this latter to differentiate from the DMCA).
What is new and dangerous is precisely what you have pointed out: corporate enforcement. In this instance, the Adobe Corp. was the only company to potentially suffer a loss. Criminal law is supposed to protect society. The DMCA does not achieve this effect. It protects (in this instance) one specific member of society. The case will likely be tried very similarly as one that Adobe would bring themselves, with only two differences: a change in evidentiary standard (which is so wildly open to speculation on the part of judges and juries as to be inconsequential, and therefore a totally moot difference) and the possibility of jail-time. Ooh. There's the biggie.
Copy a CD, go to jail (after all, you've kept Britney from getting another boob job).
Now, it's time for everyone who said "maybe we were too hard on Adobe for the Killustrator thing" to change your mind again. Adobe sucks. They always have. They always will.
According to the URL's in the news box at the top, the publishing of the work wasn't even done in the US. I agree (But IANAL. I haven't been 15 in several years) that this guy should be clear. But I believe Jon Johannsen may have some relevant stories to tell.
If the guy developed the software in the US, it should be protected. If he gave a talk about it, it is protected. If he published it IN RUSSIA, then it is up to the Russian authorities to determine if he broke the law.
Of course, it should be no surprise. If the UK can demand that the US eliminate the 2nd amendment, and the US can demand Columbia etc. stop sending drugs into the US, what's to say that it's not okay to arrest people for breaking US laws in other countries? The logic almost follows, and in this instance, given the supra-national corporation (and although Adobe ain't much, I'm sure some developing nations would absolutely love that much cash) that is at the heart of this matter, this is likely to become more common.
Bleh. Mod me -1, a ranting, poorly written diatribe.
In my way of thinking, this makes the actions of the German law firm even lame. In what manner was the law firm protecting the public from purchasing the wrong thing? I suppose if Germany is one of those countries where there is metered internet access, but if it's 30 DM per month unlimited, what exactly is the public risk?
It also seems to be a bit of a vigilante type system. Why not let the goverment do this, with an impartial trying of fact? I assume that were the University to refuse to pay (or the Dr.) that the law firm would go to court. I then assume that it is nearly impossible to get a court to disagree with the law firm. At least, in the US, that's the way it would work.
(BTW, I'm a USian. This is my analysis of your laws. If anyone reads this and says "fuck you, we do things our own way" I reply "fuck you, you certainly don't shut your yap and avoid criticizing our laws". It's a two way street. Let's face it, the laws in EVERY country are fucked up.)
You're building a cool toy, and didn't provide a URL? C'mon, c'mon, c'mon. Let me see it!
:)
Seriously, any good links (yes, I could hit google, but I'm guessing that you have progressed beyond the sniffing butt stage of a new project, and have some good sites stashed in your bookmarks.)
Back on topic: there is a good site (lost the URL) by one of the teams that states how and why the stocking is done. Basically, they don't give *exactly* what the experts ask for. Typically something requires a bit of bodging. For example, the dragster with no forward gears in the tranny. Lack of props. Etc.
Why? Have you ever been to a junkyard? Most of the good bits are already gone. You will almost never find a working (or potentially working) motor in a junkyard. That stuff gets picked out (as do almost all of the usable bits) and the only thing the public can see and crawl over are bare carcasses. (Of course, if you read Car Craft or Hot Rod, the planet is covered with wonderful junkyards that you can enter, and find a perfect 455 Olds engine for a mere $25. As a matter of fact, according to them, there are so many 350 Chevy engines that you have to carry one away when you leave the junkyard. Maybe in So. Cal., but on the East Coast? Bullshit.)
You need a good smack. Next thing you'll be saying that you don't need more horsepower for your car.
;)
Wish I had mentioned this in my earlier rant (message 30). Why the hell isn't this show reliably captioned? Why, why, why? It seems that the last British season is, but not the first US season (and the world series also was not captioned).
Battlebots is captioned. (Robot Wars UK is not). Are You Being Served is captioned. Fawlty Towers is not. Half the weird stuff on Sci-Fi is captioned (and what the hell is up with that show they put on at 8:00???) Why can't current episodes of Junkyard Wars be captioned?
Now, before anyone gets the idea that I'm one of those Deaf Community, ADA nuts, I'm not. My wife is hearing impaired, with a cochlear implant, effectively shutting us out of the 'Deaf community'. (Not to mention that she married a hearing man). And she watches JYW sometimes. Like... When it is captioned!! And she truly get's a kick out of it, but not enough to make time for it.
More important than my wife is the schools. If TLC wants to be in more, they are going to have to caption more stuff. Some school districts have requirements that captioning is available. And as others have pointed out, JYW is a not bad science/applied engineering problem.
Finally, that giant sledgehammer the Americans made was cool as shit. I really liked the British team (Hey, all those bikers? Can't go wrong) and I bet Nosh would have had a helluva good time bashing his own machine with the Americans killer sledge.
There's no problem a big enough hammer won't solve.
Fortunately, the Emmy's (and Oscar's) are not always the popularity contest that the Billboard, MTV, People's Choice, etc. awards are. There is a chance (albeit slim) that Scrapheap Challenge could pull this off.
But, to be fair, isn't Road Rules the only original show in the bunch? Junkyard Wars (as I implied) is a re-edit of Scrapheap Challenge. Can't remember the geneology of Survivor, but that may be original as well. And shouldn't 'The Real World' have been included before Road Rules?
Still, it's nice to see a new category. I only wish they had never invented the animated series category. The Simpsons should have been up against comedies. Why separate it because it's animated? Of course, it probably never would have won, but it certainly contributes to the public's low opinion of animated shows.
A few other comments:
WB, why push a show that you are not going to have any more? Of course, UPN would love it, but it doesn't make sense to complain. Oh, and BTW, the reason you didn't get any nominations is because your network is full of repetitive drivel. Please don't tell me you think a 'very special episode of Seventh Heaven' is deserving of an award (and BTW, I watched it for several years, and have nothing wrong with the show. Nice, moralistic family 'drama'. But it doesn't do or say anything. It certainly doesn't push any boundaries or do anything in an exemplary manner.)
And yes, 'Catcher in the Rye' IS a dime-store paperback. Even at 16, I thought this kid was a whining sniveller. I don't know about anyone else, but even as a geeky teen, I didn't have that much time to be doing a bunch of navel gazing like good old Holden Caufield. Get over yourself, man.
(And let's not even talk about his 'odd' relationship and thoughts about his sister. I think I saw that on Jerry Springer a few weeks ago.)
How many joysticks did that game break? And not the usual 'out of frustration' thing:)
You're totally right. I had forgotten about that. Makes things even worse.
Now, I wonder if I can get Maryland to get the tobacco companies to give me coupons for free cigarettes. I'll even bring them several pounds of 'defective' smokes ("Yeah, look at this, I burned it, sucked on it, and all that is left is this little cotton bit. I want a new one.")
LOL. Hahahaha! Man, that is the funniest shit I've heard in a long time.
No, you were right the first time. You bought the CD. Last time I checked, you didn't sign some B$ license saying you only bought the right to use the data on the disc in some proscribed manner.
Don't expect this to last, though. Sooner or later, Congress (and/or the courts) of the US will change this to saying that you did NOT buy the tangible property, you merely licensed the data on it for specific uses.
Didn't think of this earlier:
/., eh?) but I don't think this tech should preclude doing that.
You ripped a perfect copy. If you burn the copy, warts and all, wouldn't it still play identically to the copy that you bought? I haven't read the article (unusual on
It's like some of the old copy-protection schemes for computer games: if you copy the disc, warts and all, you were successful (Yes, I remember that sometimes that only worked on REALLY good floppy drives, and under some other circumstances, but the last ditch effort in copying a game was just to do a damned good bit-by-bit copy)
To the end user (plaintiff) the individual suit is usually better. But it's a tangled web:
If I sue Sony in small claims court and win, great. But there is an up and a down. Up is, I win, and it wasn't too expensive. Down is that there really isn't any precedent that is applicable to you (unless you live in Charles Co. MD, USA)
But, it probably won't happen. From what I heard somewhere (and not only am INAL, I'm Not a Good Listener:) Sony will likely try to get the case moved to some larger court.
Okay, let's say that it goes to a larger court. I need a lawyer to make my $15 claim. He doesn't want to do work for a contingency fee of $5, so he says "how 'bout a class action?" So we get a bazillion people to sue Sony. Sony says no, but really means yes (to the class action, that is). We're going to pay the same amount of lawyers (companies like that don't have small court cases) and take care of a bazillion cases. So immediately, they have saved a bazillion*(number of cases-1) dollars.
So, I win my $10. I may or may not have to pay my attorney's fees. And my attorney gets fees + bazillion*$5 (he's getting a contingency on all members of the class).
So, 'my' attorney wins, Sony wins, and everyone else loses.
Pretty shitty system, huh?
(Of course, there are many other ways that this can happen, but Sony knows that the real costs are attorneys, not plaintiffs. If they want class action, or a quick settlement, it should automatically mean that that is not in your favor as a plaintiff.)
Funny thing for me is that I only have two CDs that are badly trashed and that I would have liked to have had backed up. One is Prince (1999, I believe) and the other is Metallica (black album). Guess which one I likely won't replace?
(FWIW, I've been collecting CDs since 1985 or 1986 when my father got his first CD player. Single disc JVC. ~$400, marked down from $700.)
Someone modded you funny. Maybe. But quite true.
Despite all the kvetching, the BSD license (especially with one of those 'advertisement clauses') could have made this a moot point. There's also no reason they couldn't have printed a GPL with an onerous advertisement clause.
Get over it. If one product is better than the other, than the market will choose it, the 'lesser' product will bring in the new code, and we'll start all over again.
Anyway, nobody is buying the fscking code. Who gives a rat's ass?
Is this a real thing, or did some dipshit VC put these guys (all of them) up to these lawsuits?
Except that sometimes only the dexo-rotary appears naturally, and only the levo-rotary (hope those two terms are right. It's been nine years since organic) can be made. Or vice-versa.
First off, you make sense, 100%. Your point is well taken, and I agree with it.
But your supporting case is a very weak one. Unfortunately, in the United States, not only could that apartment owner be sued criminally, but he could forfeit the building WITHOUT a hearing of any sort.
His ability (or lack thereof) to know about the activity doesn't matter. If illegal drugs are found on property, that property is forfeit. No trial, no appeals. Bend over and kiss your apartment, house, car goodbye.
No, a real old fart would be bitching about the move to transistors. Real hacking required a box of tubes, and the patience of Job.
I think that the agreement to which I referred was the result of the lawsuit to which you referred. But there may have been a second suit. But you are right, the second suit (if there was one) should have been about 1991.
Ancient history:)
Unfortunately, I added some stuff to my original post that would have indicated that I was playing devil's advocate. Guess they got knackered. Sorry.
But anyhoo, this is an important question: IS there an OS market? Does someone actually choose between FreeBSD and Win2k? Hurd and Linux? QNX and WinME?
If you think not (and on the desktop, I think I'm right) then Killustrator is not a competitor. OTOH, if there is a market (and it seems that there is not. M$ has mind and marketshare, except among a few of us freaks) then yes, the two products do compete.
As an example... Let's say that GM creates a car called the SuperHawk (a replacement for the SuperChicken, perhaps). Can Honda sue? It depends. Both are transportation products, but one is a car, one is a bike.
Similarly, Killustrator is a Linux (forgive me if it's also available for BSD, et al.) product, and Illustrator is a Win/Mac product.
Those are the arguments that could be made. I agree with some, disagree with others. But in the end, regardless of the right and wrong of it, the expeditious thing to do, if the software is an end, and not a means to social change, is change the name.
Someone said KINI (KINI Is Not Illustrator). I like it. And you'd have to be a complete rube (or perhaps 'your honor') in order to confuse the two.
There already is a topic for followups. Slashback, I belive it is.
Except that Apple Computer did put sound recording in their hardware/software, and said to Apple Records "bite me". (Okay, they said "sosumi".)
I don't think Apple Records sued. If so, score one for corporate intelligence.
Actually, McIntosh is a fruit. Macintosh is a computer.
Most interestingly, Apple is a recording studio. Apple (the computer company) introduced the 'sosumi' beep after essentially reneging on their agreement to not put sound editing/recording on the Mac.
Would MS Mxyzptlk get them back to our dimension, or land them on the bizarro 5th dimension? (Boy, now that would be an interesting place)