Why write this article? Well, for one thing, it makes some points I haven't seen anyone make elsewhere, and they are worth making. (Consider especially part 10 of the Article.) And the author is certainly not attacking OSS; he's simply questioning whether some of the ethical pronouncements you hear from the mouths of OSS advocates aren't overstated or unfounded. It's called criticism, and in this instance it is not unconstructive.
[W]hat if someone posts government secrets to Slashdot and the Secret Service... decides to pull a Steve Jackson on Andover HQ?
Unless you're going to colocate offshore, which I would guess carries its own risks, I'm not sure that any American colocation facility can protect a site against a search warrant (which I understand was issued in the Steve Jackson case, whether rightly or wrongly).
I would be interested in knowing, however, what contract terms Exodus and other colos offer with respect to warrantless requests for searches. (That is, what has Exodus agreed to do when Agent Foo shows up without a warrant and asks to have a look at the machines hosting website Bar? Is Exodus in breach of contract if it says, "Right this way, Agent?" Or has it agreed to take some other action?)
The Wired story has an error which may cause readers some confusion. The story states:
Judge Charles Legge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday dismissed Sony's claims that Connectix violated trademark and copyright laws with its Virtual Game Station software.
In fact, Judge Legge is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the federal trial court in which Sony sued Connectix. He had previously granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Sony and against Connectix on the basis that Sony was likely to succeed on its copyright and trademark claims. The Ninth Circuit (the federal appeals court which hears appeals from the Northern District of California) instructed Judge Legge to dissolve this preliminary injunction in its February 10, 2000 opinion:
[Judge Legge] concluded that Sony was likely to succeed on its infringement claim because Connectix's "intermediate copying " was not a protected "fair use" under 17 U.S.C. sec. 107. [Legge] enjoined Connectix from selling the Virtual Game Station or from copying or using the Sony BIOS code in the development of other Virtual Game Station products. [ . . . ]
We reverse and remand with instructions to dissolve the injunction. The intermediate copies made and used by Connectix during the course of its reverse engineering of the Sony BIOS were protected fair use, necessary to permit Connectix to make its non-infringing Virtual Game Station function with PlayStation games. [ . . . ]
[Legge] also found that Sony is likely to prevail on its claim that Connectix's sale of the Virtual Game Station program tarnishes the Sony PlayStation mark under 15 U.S.C. sec. 1125. We reverse that ruling as well.
In light of the Ninth Circuit's opinion, Judge Legge has now ruled that these claims by Sony (though not all claims by Sony) are deficient as a matter of law. Readers may judge for themselves whether they should be surprised by this turn of events.
Re:They can't sue 1000's of people can they...?
on
Dialectizer Shut Down
·
· Score: 2
The US is a country run by fear of lawyers. I can't believe you Americans put up with it.
Whereas the UK is run by bureaucrats. Wanna trade? I don't.
Abandonware doesn't hurt anyone. The real problem is the inverse problem, i.e., the weirdo refusal by various tech companies to release IP rights on way-obsolete, no-question-it's-ancient products for no apparent reason. What up with that?
Which is why when farmers in Pennsylvania started an armed rebellion against the whiskey tax during Washington's first term, G.W. sent them a polite letter of encouragement. The Congress realized it had been "uppity," revoked the tax, and sent them all letters of apology.
See, if people would only read their history, they'd know things like this.
I once heard of a guy who could only get a gun if he purchased it from a licensed gun dealer and registered it. Naturally, the bear did not respect such a weapon, and ate him.
And being 'depressed' should not be a reason to refuse the sale of a gun to someone. If you really own your own life, you have every right to take it. People that far gone are very hard not to notice, if his family really cared maybe they should have been doing more to help him.
However you feel about gun control, it is truly bizarre to contend that those who own or sell guns are in no way responsible for the consequences if they put a gun in the hands of someone who openly manifests an intention to harm himself or others. If Meijer cannot take any reasonable steps to ensure that they don't sell guns to such people -- whether because of staffing problems or for any other reason -- then it seems plain that they shouldn't sell them. In any event, if Meijer does not want to get a reputation as your friendly neighborhood deep discount department store where people off themselves in the parking lot, they are certainly entitled not to do so.
Please, explain why the messages should be protected under the First Amendment. Explain why this isn't really a copyright issue.
I quibble with the "bright line" distinction that this AC draws. Restricting a person from publishing certain materials on the ground that they are copyrighted can be, in certain circumstances, a violation of that person's First Amendment rights. The question is what those circumstances are. (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) discusses this issue in some detail.)
With respect to MS's complete description of their modified spec, however, this doesn't seem to be even a close case. Whether MS has protected their trade secret is irrelevant. I can still copyright my explanation of my grandmother's pound cake recipe even if everyone in the county knows the recipe.
Now, if *I* had done the "love bug", and *I* had a whole weekend of warning that the cops were coming on monday, I would have spent most of the weekend shredding and burning any hard copy of the virus code; and, more importantly, PGPwipeing every related file AND free space on my hard drive. Then I'd move my swap file to a new partition and PGPwipe the old swap partition. Then, for good measure, I'd prolly pull out the HD and give it a good round with a bulk eraser or speaker magnent.
If I were inclined to destroy the information on a HD, I'd (1) remove the HD, (2) drive several nails through it, (3) drop it in the nearest reasonably deep body of water, and (4) install a new HD. This process can be performed in fifteen minutes or less, not counting travel time, and works with any version of PGPwipe.
Re:If you can't handle the fires, don't be a firem
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 2
Exactly. No one should ever administer a database unless they can recode a SQL server in minutes. Just like no one should ever drive an automobile unless they can rebuild the engine on the side of the road without tools in an emergency. If you don't have an incredibly rare skill set, then you shouldn't attempt routine activities.
(Sound of grinding metal as entire global economy screeches to halt.)
The case which explains why it's not just illegal to make child porn is New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). The majority opinion in that case reads, in pertinent part:
The distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children in at least two ways. First, the materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Second, the distribution network for child pornography must be closed if the production of material which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be effectively controlled. Indeed, there is no serious contention that the legislature was unjustified in believing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to halt the exploitation of children by pursuing only those who produce the photographs and movies. While the production of pornographic materials is a low-profile, clandestine industry, the need to market the resulting products requires a visible apparatus of distribution. The most expeditious if not the only practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the market for this material by imposing severe criminal penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise promoting the product. Thirty-five States and Congress have concluded that restraints on the distribution of pornographic materials are required in order to effectively combat the problem, and there is a body of literature and testimony to support these legislative conclusions.
[ . . . ]
Third. The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation. "It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute." We note that were the statutes outlawing the employment of children in these films and photographs fully effective, and the constitutionality of these laws has not been questioned, the First Amendment implications would be no greater than that presented by laws against distribution: enforceable production laws would leave no child pornography to be marketed.
Fourth. The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis. We consider it unlikely that visual depictions of children performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals would often constitute an important and necessary part of a literary performance or scientific or educational work. As a state judge in this case observed, if it were necessary for literary or artistic value, a person over the statutory age who perhaps looked younger could be utilized. Simulation outside of the prohibition of the statute could provide another alternative. Nor is there any question here of censoring a particular literary theme or portrayal of sexual activity. The First Amendment interest is limited to that of rendering the portrayal somewhat more "realistic" by utilizing or photographing children.
There should be something to protect us from these kind of things. Are you really allowed to make changes to a open standard and refuse to disclose it?
Trivially, yes. Suppose I write a browser that I distribute in binary form that renders standard HTML except adds the element "". No law obliges me to disclose I've made this change to the standard.
Qualification: It could be contended that the antitrust laws may prohibit a monopolist from doing this. Here is Robert Bork's argument to that effect in his white paper in the DOJ v. MS case:
That a monopolist or virtual monopolist is not free to define its product in ways that stifle competition is clear from
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985). The defendant Skiing Co. owned and operated downhill skiing facilities on three mountains in Aspen; plaintiff Highlands operated on a fourth mountain. For years, the two companies offered a week-long pass, the "all-Aspen ticket," usable at any of the four mountains. The price was usually discounted from the price of daily tickets.
Skiing Co. then initiated various changes that ended its cooperative marketing with Highlands, effectively denying skiers the benefits of the four-mountain pass and diminishing substantially skiers' use of Highland's mountain. In successive ski seasons, from 1976 to 1981, Highlands' share of downhill skiing services in Aspen declined steadily: from 20.5% to 15.7% to 13.1% to 12.5% to 11%. Though it agreed that "even a firm with monopoly power has no general duty to engage in a joint marketing program with a competitor," the Supreme Court said that if the firm attempts to exclude rivals on some basis other than efficiency, its behavior is predatory. The record supported the jury's finding that Skiing Co.'s conduct lacked an efficiency justification. The Court therefore upheld the conclusion that Skiing Co. had monopolized the market for downhill skiing services in Aspen. Aspen Skiing is a direct holding that a monopolist is not free to define its product for the purpose and with the effect of excluding a competitor.
(Emphasis added. Incidentally, whatever you think of Bork as a constitutional theorist, he is recognized as standing among the very top rank of scholars of antitrust law, living or dead.)
(1) The record industry (RIAA's membership) will take a profit hit as a result of internet distribution of MP3s ("IDM"). The hit may be small or it may be large.
Rationale: The fact that IDM creates a new alternative distribution channel does not guarantee increased profits. The parallel with the movie industry/VCRs is ultimately not a good one.
(2) Individual artists may or may not take a profit hit (and may even see a profit boost) as a result of IDM, although it is likely that many of the largest names (Metallica, Madonna, etc.) will take a hit.
Rationale: Low- to medium-profile artists will benefit from IDM because they benefit from any publicity. High-profile artists do not benefit appreciably from publicity and will lose unit sales. A few high-profile artists who make their profits other than through unit sales (e.g., by touring) will see profit increases.
(3) There is no reason to suppose that IDM will have a seriously negative effect on the range and quality of recorded popular music available to the average listener, and it may even have a positive effect.
Rationale: Follows from (1) and (2) above. Most recording artists' incentives are not signifcantly affected by the profit hit that high-profile artists may suffer, and it is possible that the potential for inexpensive distribution will encourage lower-profile artists to do more and better work.
There are individuals out there who are less than honest. They will sell a domain to someone, then go back to the registrar and say that the name was stolen. What is the registrar supposed to do at this point?
I don't mean to quibble, but this seems like a pretty unlikely scam. It depends on the unlikely existence of both (1) a scammer who acquires a domain name worth something and (2) a purchaser both flush enough to purchase the domain name and naïve enough not to obtain either adequate documentation of the purchase or actual confirmation of the name's transfer from the registrar. Further, it would seem that there are other ways to address this potential issue than a blanket nonassignability term.
It appears that many of the registrars use contract terms requiring the registrar's consent to the assignment of domain names. (Or making domain names generally nonassignable, which amounts to the same thing, because the registrar can always consent to waive the nonassignability provision in any particular case.) Three questions:
(1) Has anyone ever been refused consent to assign a domain name?
(2) I understand that in many jurisdictions, nonassignability provisions in contracts (other than contracts for personal services) are enforceable only if they are "reasonable." Does anyone have any intelligence on whether an assignability clause is "reasonable" under the law of any jurisidiction? (That is to say, has anyone ever heard of a court considering this issue? I suspect that most registrars provide for mandatory arbitration in their contracts, and that consequently courts would not have the opportunity to consider this issue.)
(3) Aside from alleviation of chronic corporatist paranoia, what benefit do registrars hope to realize from these clauses? (Put another way, what disaster do they hope to prevent?)
So the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA") isn't a "regulation," because it was enacted by Congress and not issued by an administrative agency? Likewise the other patent and copyright laws? Glad you cleared that up -- now we can stop worrying about them. Rule of thumb, people: Whatever Congress does is hunky-dory.
I bought one of these primarily because of the form factor: I've been using a Canon Elph, and I couldn't see dragging around something as big as a Mavica. The resolution is reasonably good (topping out 1280 x 1024 in 24 bit color; e-mail me for a sample), and I have a USB SmartMedia card reader (less than $40) to transfer the pictures into my laptop or desktop. (The camera also has a very slow serial link; it comes with cables for PC and Mac.) Expect to buy one or more larger SmartMedia cards, as the 8MB card that comes with the unit takes about 11 pictures at the highest resolution, which IMHO is the only setting you'd really want to use it at. Also includes a 3x zoom (tolerable) and 2" LCD screen so you can inspect your pictures and dump bad ones to free up space on your cards.
To me, the main benefit of a digital camera is that because there's essentially no marginal cost to taking pictures, I take a lot more of them, which makes the digital camera more fun.
Current discounted street prices are around $450. FWIW, here's a buy.com link to the camera. I understand that Fuji has higher res models in this form factor now, but you'll naturally pay more.
Slashdot Mirror
Why write this article? Well, for one thing, it makes some points I haven't seen anyone make elsewhere, and they are worth making. (Consider especially part 10 of the Article.) And the author is certainly not attacking OSS; he's simply questioning whether some of the ethical pronouncements you hear from the mouths of OSS advocates aren't overstated or unfounded. It's called criticism, and in this instance it is not unconstructive.
It turns out that Rosebud was his sled.
Unless you're going to colocate offshore, which I would guess carries its own risks, I'm not sure that any American colocation facility can protect a site against a search warrant (which I understand was issued in the Steve Jackson case, whether rightly or wrongly).
I would be interested in knowing, however, what contract terms Exodus and other colos offer with respect to warrantless requests for searches. (That is, what has Exodus agreed to do when Agent Foo shows up without a warrant and asks to have a look at the machines hosting website Bar? Is Exodus in breach of contract if it says, "Right this way, Agent?" Or has it agreed to take some other action?)
By like reasoning, I would suppose, there can be no such thing as invasion of privacy.
In fact, Judge Legge is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the federal trial court in which Sony sued Connectix. He had previously granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Sony and against Connectix on the basis that Sony was likely to succeed on its copyright and trademark claims. The Ninth Circuit (the federal appeals court which hears appeals from the Northern District of California) instructed Judge Legge to dissolve this preliminary injunction in its February 10, 2000 opinion:
In light of the Ninth Circuit's opinion, Judge Legge has now ruled that these claims by Sony (though not all claims by Sony) are deficient as a matter of law. Readers may judge for themselves whether they should be surprised by this turn of events.
Whereas the UK is run by bureaucrats. Wanna trade? I don't.
Abandonware doesn't hurt anyone. The real problem is the inverse problem, i.e., the weirdo refusal by various tech companies to release IP rights on way-obsolete, no-question-it's-ancient products for no apparent reason. What up with that?
Unless Congress extends their lives. As Congress recently did for copyrights.
See, if people would only read their history, they'd know things like this.
I once heard of a guy who could only get a gun if he purchased it from a licensed gun dealer and registered it. Naturally, the bear did not respect such a weapon, and ate him.
However you feel about gun control, it is truly bizarre to contend that those who own or sell guns are in no way responsible for the consequences if they put a gun in the hands of someone who openly manifests an intention to harm himself or others. If Meijer cannot take any reasonable steps to ensure that they don't sell guns to such people -- whether because of staffing problems or for any other reason -- then it seems plain that they shouldn't sell them. In any event, if Meijer does not want to get a reputation as your friendly neighborhood deep discount department store where people off themselves in the parking lot, they are certainly entitled not to do so.
I quibble with the "bright line" distinction that this AC draws. Restricting a person from publishing certain materials on the ground that they are copyrighted can be, in certain circumstances, a violation of that person's First Amendment rights. The question is what those circumstances are. (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) discusses this issue in some detail.)
With respect to MS's complete description of their modified spec, however, this doesn't seem to be even a close case. Whether MS has protected their trade secret is irrelevant. I can still copyright my explanation of my grandmother's pound cake recipe even if everyone in the county knows the recipe.
They like that Weezer song that goes, "If you want to destroy my sweater ..."
If I were inclined to destroy the information on a HD, I'd (1) remove the HD, (2) drive several nails through it, (3) drop it in the nearest reasonably deep body of water, and (4) install a new HD. This process can be performed in fifteen minutes or less, not counting travel time, and works with any version of PGPwipe.
(Sound of grinding metal as entire global economy screeches to halt.)
Id. at 759-64 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Trivially, yes. Suppose I write a browser that I distribute in binary form that renders standard HTML except adds the element "". No law obliges me to disclose I've made this change to the standard.
Qualification: It could be contended that the antitrust laws may prohibit a monopolist from doing this. Here is Robert Bork's argument to that effect in his white paper in the DOJ v. MS case:
(Emphasis added. Incidentally, whatever you think of Bork as a constitutional theorist, he is recognized as standing among the very top rank of scholars of antitrust law, living or dead.)
(2) Individual artists may or may not take a profit hit (and may even see a profit boost) as a result of IDM, although it is likely that many of the largest names (Metallica, Madonna, etc.) will take a hit.
(3) There is no reason to suppose that IDM will have a seriously negative effect on the range and quality of recorded popular music available to the average listener, and it may even have a positive effect.
# # #
Are these right?
I don't mean to quibble, but this seems like a pretty unlikely scam. It depends on the unlikely existence of both (1) a scammer who acquires a domain name worth something and (2) a purchaser both flush enough to purchase the domain name and naïve enough not to obtain either adequate documentation of the purchase or actual confirmation of the name's transfer from the registrar. Further, it would seem that there are other ways to address this potential issue than a blanket nonassignability term.
(1) Has anyone ever been refused consent to assign a domain name?
(2) I understand that in many jurisdictions, nonassignability provisions in contracts (other than contracts for personal services) are enforceable only if they are "reasonable." Does anyone have any intelligence on whether an assignability clause is "reasonable" under the law of any jurisidiction? (That is to say, has anyone ever heard of a court considering this issue? I suspect that most registrars provide for mandatory arbitration in their contracts, and that consequently courts would not have the opportunity to consider this issue.)
(3) Aside from alleviation of chronic corporatist paranoia, what benefit do registrars hope to realize from these clauses? (Put another way, what disaster do they hope to prevent?)
Pieces of paper on a desktop?
So the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA") isn't a "regulation," because it was enacted by Congress and not issued by an administrative agency? Likewise the other patent and copyright laws? Glad you cleared that up -- now we can stop worrying about them. Rule of thumb, people: Whatever Congress does is hunky-dory.
To me, the main benefit of a digital camera is that because there's essentially no marginal cost to taking pictures, I take a lot more of them, which makes the digital camera more fun.
Current discounted street prices are around $450. FWIW, here's a buy.com link to the camera. I understand that Fuji has higher res models in this form factor now, but you'll naturally pay more.
Unless, of course, you set it in and around Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Come to think of it, New England Revolution fans -- that's the soccer team outside of Boston -- are an odd bunch as well.
The sure sign of a recovering typewriter user.