Some comments (on my own comment, as/. didn't seem to want to eat the whole thing in one bite):
* Presumably 31 CFR 560.205 is the restriction complained of here. (I don't know for sure why an Austrian company would be bound by this, but one can conjecture: It has an American partner that doesn't want to be hit with a conspiracy-to-evade-export-controls rap; the Austrian company does significant business in the USA, and is therefore prosecutable in the USA; etc.)
* The "10% by value" restriction of 560.205 would seem to exempt "free-beer"-free software from this regulation, as such software would constitute no part of the value of the ultimate product. Or is it not the case that value refers to actual market price -- its ordinary meaning -- in the case of software? (If so, can someone provide a pointer?)
* Presumably the 560.210(c) "information" exception would apply to export of a Linux distribution, assuming that there's nothing in said distro that would run afoul of the general export controls referred to in 560.315(b)(1). (E.g., the distro doesn't have some progam that does 128-bit encryption.)
* If so, would reexport of the distribution fall within the restriction of 560.205's scope to items "the exportation of which to Iran was subject to export license application requirements under any United States regulations in effect immediately prior to May 6, 1995"? (The previous set of regs isn't available on the web; I'd guess they were comprehensively revised in May 1995. If the previous set had an information exception, then perhaps you could reexport a Linux distro to Iran without penalty.)
[Meta-Comment: As noted above, I am by no means an expert on these things -- and anyone seeking to export anything to Iran from the US should absolutely consult a lawyer with expertise in the field -- but it wasn't too hard to find this stuff. If someone tells you about a US law or regulation that irks you, your first move should be to RTFR[SR]P. ("R[SR]P" = relevant statutory or regulatory provisions.) If you can read man pages, you can certainly read code and regs volumes.]
... can anyone tell us what regulations are at issue here are? I have no expertise in this area, but I did find the following potentially relevant regulations at the GPO Code of Federal Regulations site:
[T]he reexportation to Iran or the Government of Iran of any goods or technology exported from the United States, the exportation of which to Iran was subject to export license application requirements under any United States regulations in effect immediately prior to May 6, 1995, is prohibited, unless the reexportation is of goods that have been . . . incorporated into another product outside the United States and constitute less than 10 percent by value of that product exported from a third country.
(1) The prohibitions of Secs. 560.204 [pertaining to direct export from USA] and 560.206 [pertaining to import from Iran] do not apply to the exportation from the United States to Iran of information and informational materials, as defined in Sec. 560.315, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission . . ..
_ (3) Paragraph (c)(1) does not authorize transactions incident to the exportation of restricted technical data as defined in part 779 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR part 779, or to the exportation of goods for use in the transmission of any data. The exportation of such goods to Iran is prohibited, as provided in 560.204.
(a) The term information or informational materials includes, without limitation:
_ (1) Publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. _ (b) The term information and informational materials with respect to United States exports does not include items: _ (1) That were, as of April 30, 1994, controlled for export pursuant to section 5 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. App. 2401-2420 (the "EAA"), or section 6 of the EAA to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, including "software" that is not "publicly available" as these terms are defined in 15 CFR parts 779 and 799.1 . . ..
Off on a tangent a bit, I've been looking for a general guide to what the various configuration files are -- i.e., where they are located, what they do, what sorts of programs rely on them. While I have been able to dig this kind of information out of particular man pages, HOWTOs, etc., on a need-to-know-x basis, I'm trying to get a whole-picture, right-brain understanding of my system, and it would seem there has to be a better way. Can anyone suggest something?
When seeking information on the Internet about important new developments in astrophysics, using the search term "pink holes" will probably not give you completely satisfactory results with most search engines, even though the hit count may be large.
Because there's some confusion about this n some of the foregoing comments, I'd point out that trademark protection of a word or phrase is not the same as copyright protection of a lengthy text.
Trademark law, in a nutshell, goes like this: If I use "Quality" as the trade name for my dog food,
it doesn't mean that people can no longer use the word "quality",
it doesn't mean that people can't simply talk about "Quality Dog Food" in a non-advertising context, and
at least in the case of regular words like "quality" -- as opposed to made-up words like "Xerox" or "Slashdot" -- it doesn't mean you can't use the same exact word to sell a different product (e.g., "Quality Dry Cleaning").
All the trademark means is that there are restrictions on the way you can use the word when you advertise for some other product: In particular, you have to make clear that the product you're advertising is made by someone other than the manufacturer who uses that trade name.
I'd agree that these META-tag cases are harder than the typical trademark case, but not by much. If I put "Slashdot Cola tastes better than Coca-Cola" in the text of my web page advertising/.-brand beverages, there's no confusion -- it's clear to everyone that I'm selling something else. But the whole point of META tags is to work in the background (i.e., so you don't have to put "delicious carbonated presweetened cola flavored beverage" in the text of the page, but you can still pick up people looking for such things with search engines). If I look for "Coca-Cola" and find the/. Cola page without any explanation of why I got that result, I might assume that this was a new brand of Coke, or that Coke was now calling itself something different. That's trading on Coke's goodwill, and that's what the trademark laws prohibit. There may be some harder cases, but I think the general rule is sound.
(Come to think of it, I could go for an ice-cold Slashdot Cola right now. I wonder if there are any left in the fridge. (glug glug glug) Aaaah, so refreshing.)
A number of people have suggested that the best strategy for surviving high school is to keep your head down. Keeping in mind the hacker credo that "There's more than one way to do it," I would suggest that there's another way to handle the situation: Keep your head up.
Be kind and generous to those even more excluded than yourself (such people probably exist, believe it or not). Laugh at your mistakes. While it doesn't matter how you look or dress, take care of yourself physically. Flirt, especially with members of the opposite sex who are way, way out of your league. Don't bother harassing teachers and administrators; they're rarely malevolent, and there's no need to make unnecessary adversaries. Tell people what you're thinking. Turn the other cheek yourself, but don't stand by silently while others are picked on. In short, be the best person you can reasonably be under the circumstances.
There is no question that high school is an oppressive environment, sometimes wildly so. Don't ever believe it when someone tells you, "These are the best days of your life." But you don't have to go through it with your eyes on the pavement. Be a free person, no matter what. It may not be easy, but it is worth a try.
Media pandering distorts analysis
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
In "perfect" suburbia, there is no escape from the fact that you don't fit in. There is no escape from ridicule, abuse, threats and the daily victimization that goes on for years in the lives of many many kids around the country. In a big city there are places to escape, other things to do. In suburbia, you can't even go to a movie or the arcade without all the kids from your school being right there, without all the ridicule being right there.
This is very well put, but don't expect Ted Koppel to raise this point on Nightline anytime soon. The media's analysis of this issue starts by pointing the finger of blame in the direction which least implicates the majority of the reading/viewing audience -- e.g., electronic games, the Anarchist Cookbook, metal bands, fringe political groups. The suggestion that the suburban way of life (which is deemed Good and Pure) might somehow give rise to this sort of behavior, while urban living (which is deemed Sleazy and Corrupt) does not, won't even show up on the radar screen. The unhappy suggestion that the shooters may have been terrorized by their classmates has for the most part also been ignored.
Along those same lines, I would note that probably the most outrageous and cynical thing I've seen in the aftermath of this shooting is the media hyping of police speculation that the shooters' friends had a role in all this. The police are openly suggesting that the shooters had accomplices in the mass murder of their classmates. While they haven't named names, that's a horrible smear on the reputation of the shooters' friends, who are probably already pretty traumatized. While I can't say for certain that the speculation is wrong, the police certainly could have kept their hypotheses to themselves until they completed the first phase of their investigations.
Hopefully the next judge in this series of appeals will understand the nature of emulation and reverse the decision.
This wasn't an appeal; the MacWeek article says that it was a decision by a U.S. District Court. Sony filed suit in January, so this was probably a decision by the judge on a motion for a preliminary injunction. While the injunction is nominally "preliminary," such injunctions are generally only issued where the judge finds that the moving party (here, Sony) has a substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing on the merits of its claim. The first appeal, if any, would be to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
(Apropos of nothing, I continue to be appalled that the federal courts are so technologically backward. The entire docketing system for the federal courts is on a computer; is it gatewayed to the WWW? No, you have to have an account and pay $1/minute to get docket information if you don't want to physically go down to the courthouse. Every judge's chambers uses a word processing system to create opinions and other long documents; are such documents available on line? Not for the district courts. And don't get me started on the state courts.)
Could it be that Apple, on the virge of something that could finally be considered success, didn't want a listful of raving lunatic advocates scaring everyone away?
I don't know how many newspaper and magazine columns I've seen in the last couple years in which the writer complains that after giving a positive-but-not-100%-positive review of some Apple product, his/her mailbox filled up with flame of the most vile kind from the EvangeListers. In fairness, I did see a small number of columns in which a writer corrected him/herself after having misdescribed or failed to take note of some Apple product, and thanked EvangeListers. On balance, however, I can't imagine the EL was winning Apple many friends in the press. I'm sure many writers just avoided the topic of Apple because they just couldn't deal. It would have been in Apple's interest to have shut the thing down a long time ago.
Actually, last I heard the Government was preparing a bill that would not only encourage strong encryption, but also make digital signatures (a la PGP sig) just as legally binding as a physical signature on a piece of paper... 'bout time if you ask me...
In fact, the trend in legal reform seems to be to do away with signature requirements altogether, or to water them down down so much that they are effectively eliminated. For example, in Revised Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the previous requirement of a signature to effectuate a securities transaction has been replaced by a provision expressly stating that no signature is required. Similarly, SEC electronic filing regulations (if I understand correctly) generally provide that an ASCII "X" will suffice in place of a signature.
The upshot is that there is nothing magical about a handwritten signature. What matters is whether the identity of the parties to the transactions you are worried about can meaningfully be verified.
(Whether signatures are necessary in any specific instance, however, is a question you can ask your attorney.)
Anyone can file a lawsuit for any amount of money for the price of the filing fee, which is usually less than $200. It doesn't matter if the claims alleged have any merit; it doesn't matter if the defendants are known, unknown or nonexistent; it doesn't matter if the damage figure has any basis in reality. It's therefore irresponsible on the part of journalists to report on such filings as if they had any independent significance, and without providing some assessment of the plaintiffs' chances of prevailing.
That having been said, there's something peculiar about this lawsuit. Everyone is familiar with the cases where it's alleged, "Song X [or Film X, or whatever] pushed my son over the deep end." Putting the obvious First Amendment defenses aside for a moment, it's clear how you might prove causation in such a case -- e.g., the song/film/whatever said "Remove your liver with a rusty spoon," and young Johnny actually removed his liver with a rusty spoon. It's clear that there's some sort of connection, even though Johnny's mental problems might mean that the connection isn't legally sufficient to make out a claim.
In this case, the plaintiffs seem to be alleging that all these media products are somehow jointly responsible for this boy's act. I have no idea how I'd go about proving that. I imagine the lawyers for each company might say to the jury, "Even if media violence drove the kid over the edge, there's no evidence before you that my client's product was the straw that broke the camel's back."
Some states, and I don't know if Kentucky is one, recognize something called "market share liability." If Bob gets poisoned by pesticide X, but it's not clear whether the pesticide was actually made by A or B, then A and B might both be held liable depending on their market share in this product (e.g., A makes 55% of the pesticide, so it pays 55% of the damages). Something like that might conceivably form the basis for dividing up liability here, but the analogy isn't great: What percentage of the "market" for media violence does Quake represent, for example?
If the case isn't settled quickly for its so-called "nuisance value," I imagine the defendants will move to dismiss the case, and they'll be successful.
To the extent Alsop suggests that the government withdraw copyright protection it has already extended, there's a constitutional problem: Under the Fifth Amendment, a copyright is property which cannot be taken away from the copyright holder without compensation. The government could stop issuing copyrights, but the existing copyrights would be valid until they expire.
One could imagine that the government could punch a rather serious hole in the copyright laws by substantially expanding the parameters of the "fair use" doctrine. Whether that's constitutional (insofar as the expansion would apply to existing copyrights) is hard to say, as the government's never really done anything like that so far as I know.
Here's a thought: Suppose Congress passed a law making an exception from the infringement laws for the creation of exact copies of copyrighted work (e.g., you can dupe a film and sell copies, but you can't sell colorized copies, or copies with missing scenes, etc.). Such a regime(*) would avoid some of the problems discussed above; in particular, you couldn't reattribute a work to yourself, and it seems -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that the GPL, LGPL and similar schemes would survive. Again, this proposal probably raises constitutional issues. It might, however, be attractive to some copyright holders, particularly those who make their money from advertising embedded into copyrighted work (e.g., television networks). I'd be interested in hearing if anyone is aware of any serious discussions of such proposals.
[* If you don't know, legal types informally call complex statutory structures "regimes"; the term has nothing to do with the third world sense of the word.]
Like the majority of college students, I went right to college from high school. In retrospect, it would have done me no harm whatsoever to have asked my college admissions office to defer my admission for one year (or two) so that I could have done something -- worked, volunteered, served in the military, what-have-you -- which would have given me a taste of the real world before I went to college. My understanding is that most colleges are relatively generous about granting such deferments; high school students who are confronting this dilemma might look into it.
As it happens, I just returned moments ago from the New Hampshire State Democratic Convention, where the delegates were addressed by Tipper Gore (subbing for the VP, who was apparently occupied by Kosovo, etc.) and Bill Bradley.
Bradley is an impressive character, and he had a surprisingly large turnout among volunteers (perhaps 3-1 in numbers over Gore). If you're interested seeing how the man walks and talks in a relatively informal setting, check the C-Span schedule over the next few days; they had a crew there taping the event. Worth checking out if you won't vote Republican but don't find Gore an attractive candidate.
What this article says (quite plainly, I think) is that while the concept of a compressed, readily exchangable digital audio format -- of which MP3 is one embodiment -- is clearly here to stay, notwithstanding the best efforts of the RIAA, kiss this particular embodiment of the concept goodbye the minute a better mousetrap comes along.
Ask yourself: If a new MP3-ish format came along with better sound quality, better compression rates, or -- last but certainly not least -- a public domain algorithm, wouldn't you switch in a heartbeat? If not, why not?
That having been said, here are some real questions to ask the author:
What is the reasonable probability, from a technical standpoint, that some replacement format might come along anytime soon? Is it even feasible?
Even if it's likely that there will be a new format, what is the reasonable probability that the new format will be public domain, or that the licensing terms for the format will be as favorable as MP3?
Isn't your concern about overinvesting in in MP3-specific hardware, etc., exaggerated, as most MP3 playback devices will be readily reprogrammable by one method or another?
I'd be very interested to hear someone with some knowledge of audio compression theory, audio hardware, etc., speak to these issues. (I'm sure there are other issues I haven't thought of.) The less said about how CNN is trying to crush MP3, however, the better, because that's clearly not the point of the article.
This means that even if the product doesn't do a single thing it claims to be able to do, THE USER HAS NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR SUIT!
I don't think this is exactly right: If the software vendor had absolutely no obligations whatsoever, the contract between the vendor and customer might be considered "unsupported by consideration" (ah, legal jargon) and therefore unenforceable as a contract.
More common, I think, are limitation of liability clauses which state that the vendor's liability is limited to a refund of the purchase price of the software license. Such limitations are common in many other industries as well, and are regularly enforced by courts.
[You might feel that such limitations are unconscionable, and should therefore be ignored by the courts. The standard reply is while courts can readily tell whether a contract is supported by some valuable consideration on both sides, it's not a court's job to evaluate whether a contract is a good deal -- it's the market's. If you don't like the terms of the software license, you should find another software vendor. That's the argument, anyway.]
Incidentally, contrary to evilpenguin's comment, it is not at all uncommon for businesses to sue their software vendors; in particular, many vendors have been (or anticipate being) sued as a result of the Y2K problem. Read a recent 10-Q or 10-K from any major software vendor for a discussion of this issue. It's relatively rare, I think, for ordinary consumers to sue software vendors, but you can read about one such case at the web site of the Milberg Weiss law firm (search with the keyword Issokson -- it's a Y2K case).
If the Dvorak layout is indeed more efficient and it is only the cost of retraining that keeps people from adopting it, then the market is not efficient because, clearly, the most efficient technology is not being used.
Ignoring implementation costs leads to a peculiar definition of "most efficient." Suppose you invented a way of making your home as energy efficient as possible, which would save you $10 a month in electric bills. Would it be worth spending $1 million to remodel your house to get this efficiency gain? Clearly not: The present value of the infinite string of $10 payments is a few thousand dollars at most. How is this a failure of the market?
I think there are basically two ideas of market failure at work here:
(1) The market is inefficient because it fails to select the best among competing technologies at the outset, after which point the costs of change become too great. (E.g., after the Blockbuster stores are filled with video rentals on VHS, changing to Beta is too expensive.)
(2) Though the costs of conversion to a better technology for the entire market would be minimal, the conversion will not occur because of network effects which make conversion by any individual too large to be worthwhile. (E.g., it'll do me little good to switch to Dvorak at home because it'll be difficult and expensive to do so all by myself in a QWERTY world. Presumably the remedy in such cases is coordination by a central authority with power to effect the marketwide changeover; e.g., the federal government requires that all new keyboards must be Dvorak.)
The point of the article (as I understand it) is that Dvorak's advantage over QWERTY, if any, is not so large such that either market failures (1) and (2) can be said to have occurred. (Putting it another way, Dvorak's advantage over QWERTY is like the $10/month advantage in energy efficiency in my example: Too small to justify the implementation costs.)
Slashdot Mirror
Some comments (on my own comment, as /. didn't seem to want to eat the whole thing in one bite):
* Presumably 31 CFR 560.205 is the restriction complained of here. (I don't know for sure why an Austrian company would be bound by this, but one can conjecture: It has an American partner that doesn't want to be hit with a conspiracy-to-evade-export-controls rap; the Austrian company does significant business in the USA, and is therefore prosecutable in the USA; etc.)
* The "10% by value" restriction of 560.205 would seem to exempt "free-beer"-free software from this regulation, as such software would constitute no part of the value of the ultimate product. Or is it not the case that value refers to actual market price -- its ordinary meaning -- in the case of software? (If so, can someone provide a pointer?)
* Presumably the 560.210(c) "information" exception would apply to export of a Linux distribution, assuming that there's nothing in said distro that would run afoul of the general export controls referred to in 560.315(b)(1). (E.g., the distro doesn't have some progam that does 128-bit encryption.)
[Meta-Comment: As noted above, I am by no means an expert on these things -- and anyone seeking to export anything to Iran from the US should absolutely consult a lawyer with expertise in the field -- but it wasn't too hard to find this stuff. If someone tells you about a US law or regulation that irks you, your first move should be to RTFR[SR]P. ("R[SR]P" = relevant statutory or regulatory provisions.) If you can read man pages, you can certainly read code and regs volumes.]
Index to Iranian transactions regulations, 31 CFR pt. 560.
Restriction on reexport to Iran, 31 CFR 560.205, which reads in part:
Exemption for "information," 31 CFR 560.210(c), which reads in part:
Definition of information, 31 CFR 560.315, which reads in part:
Off on a tangent a bit, I've been looking for a general guide to what the various configuration files are -- i.e., where they are located, what they do, what sorts of programs rely on them. While I have been able to dig this kind of information out of particular man pages, HOWTOs, etc., on a need-to-know-x basis, I'm trying to get a whole-picture, right-brain understanding of my system, and it would seem there has to be a better way. Can anyone suggest something?
When seeking information on the Internet about important new developments in astrophysics, using the search term "pink holes" will probably not give you completely satisfactory results with most search engines, even though the hit count may be large.
Trademark law, in a nutshell, goes like this: If I use "Quality" as the trade name for my dog food,
- it doesn't mean that people can no longer use the word "quality",
- it doesn't mean that people can't simply talk about "Quality Dog Food" in a non-advertising context, and
- at least in the case of regular words like "quality" -- as opposed to made-up words like "Xerox" or "Slashdot" -- it doesn't mean you can't use the same exact word to sell a different product (e.g., "Quality Dry Cleaning").
All the trademark means is that there are restrictions on the way you can use the word when you advertise for some other product: In particular, you have to make clear that the product you're advertising is made by someone other than the manufacturer who uses that trade name.I'd agree that these META-tag cases are harder than the typical trademark case, but not by much. If I put "Slashdot Cola tastes better than Coca-Cola" in the text of my web page advertising /.-brand beverages, there's no confusion -- it's clear to everyone that I'm selling something else. But the whole point of META tags is to work in the background (i.e., so you don't have to put "delicious carbonated presweetened cola flavored beverage" in the text of the page, but you can still pick up people looking for such things with search engines). If I look for "Coca-Cola" and find the /. Cola page without any explanation of why I got that result, I might assume that this was a new brand of Coke, or that Coke was now calling itself something different. That's trading on Coke's goodwill, and that's what the trademark laws prohibit. There may be some harder cases, but I think the general rule is sound.
(Come to think of it, I could go for an ice-cold Slashdot Cola right now. I wonder if there are any left in the fridge. (glug glug glug) Aaaah, so refreshing.)
Be kind and generous to those even more excluded than yourself (such people probably exist, believe it or not). Laugh at your mistakes. While it doesn't matter how you look or dress, take care of yourself physically. Flirt, especially with members of the opposite sex who are way, way out of your league. Don't bother harassing teachers and administrators; they're rarely malevolent, and there's no need to make unnecessary adversaries. Tell people what you're thinking. Turn the other cheek yourself, but don't stand by silently while others are picked on. In short, be the best person you can reasonably be under the circumstances.
There is no question that high school is an oppressive environment, sometimes wildly so. Don't ever believe it when someone tells you, "These are the best days of your life." But you don't have to go through it with your eyes on the pavement. Be a free person, no matter what. It may not be easy, but it is worth a try.
This is very well put, but don't expect Ted Koppel to raise this point on Nightline anytime soon. The media's analysis of this issue starts by pointing the finger of blame in the direction which least implicates the majority of the reading/viewing audience -- e.g., electronic games, the Anarchist Cookbook, metal bands, fringe political groups. The suggestion that the suburban way of life (which is deemed Good and Pure) might somehow give rise to this sort of behavior, while urban living (which is deemed Sleazy and Corrupt) does not, won't even show up on the radar screen. The unhappy suggestion that the shooters may have been terrorized by their classmates has for the most part also been ignored.
Along those same lines, I would note that probably the most outrageous and cynical thing I've seen in the aftermath of this shooting is the media hyping of police speculation that the shooters' friends had a role in all this. The police are openly suggesting that the shooters had accomplices in the mass murder of their classmates. While they haven't named names, that's a horrible smear on the reputation of the shooters' friends, who are probably already pretty traumatized. While I can't say for certain that the speculation is wrong, the police certainly could have kept their hypotheses to themselves until they completed the first phase of their investigations.
This wasn't an appeal; the MacWeek article says that it was a decision by a U.S. District Court. Sony filed suit in January, so this was probably a decision by the judge on a motion for a preliminary injunction. While the injunction is nominally "preliminary," such injunctions are generally only issued where the judge finds that the moving party (here, Sony) has a substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing on the merits of its claim. The first appeal, if any, would be to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
(Apropos of nothing, I continue to be appalled that the federal courts are so technologically backward. The entire docketing system for the federal courts is on a computer; is it gatewayed to the WWW? No, you have to have an account and pay $1/minute to get docket information if you don't want to physically go down to the courthouse. Every judge's chambers uses a word processing system to create opinions and other long documents; are such documents available on line? Not for the district courts. And don't get me started on the state courts.)
I don't know how many newspaper and magazine columns I've seen in the last couple years in which the writer complains that after giving a positive-but-not-100%-positive review of some Apple product, his/her mailbox filled up with flame of the most vile kind from the EvangeListers. In fairness, I did see a small number of columns in which a writer corrected him/herself after having misdescribed or failed to take note of some Apple product, and thanked EvangeListers. On balance, however, I can't imagine the EL was winning Apple many friends in the press. I'm sure many writers just avoided the topic of Apple because they just couldn't deal. It would have been in Apple's interest to have shut the thing down a long time ago.
In fact, the trend in legal reform seems to be to do away with signature requirements altogether, or to water them down down so much that they are effectively eliminated. For example, in Revised Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the previous requirement of a signature to effectuate a securities transaction has been replaced by a provision expressly stating that no signature is required. Similarly, SEC electronic filing regulations (if I understand correctly) generally provide that an ASCII "X" will suffice in place of a signature.
The upshot is that there is nothing magical about a handwritten signature. What matters is whether the identity of the parties to the transactions you are worried about can meaningfully be verified.
(Whether signatures are necessary in any specific instance, however, is a question you can ask your attorney.)
That having been said, there's something peculiar about this lawsuit. Everyone is familiar with the cases where it's alleged, "Song X [or Film X, or whatever] pushed my son over the deep end." Putting the obvious First Amendment defenses aside for a moment, it's clear how you might prove causation in such a case -- e.g., the song/film/whatever said "Remove your liver with a rusty spoon," and young Johnny actually removed his liver with a rusty spoon. It's clear that there's some sort of connection, even though Johnny's mental problems might mean that the connection isn't legally sufficient to make out a claim.
In this case, the plaintiffs seem to be alleging that all these media products are somehow jointly responsible for this boy's act. I have no idea how I'd go about proving that. I imagine the lawyers for each company might say to the jury, "Even if media violence drove the kid over the edge, there's no evidence before you that my client's product was the straw that broke the camel's back."
Some states, and I don't know if Kentucky is one, recognize something called "market share liability." If Bob gets poisoned by pesticide X, but it's not clear whether the pesticide was actually made by A or B, then A and B might both be held liable depending on their market share in this product (e.g., A makes 55% of the pesticide, so it pays 55% of the damages). Something like that might conceivably form the basis for dividing up liability here, but the analogy isn't great: What percentage of the "market" for media violence does Quake represent, for example?
If the case isn't settled quickly for its so-called "nuisance value," I imagine the defendants will move to dismiss the case, and they'll be successful.
One could imagine that the government could punch a rather serious hole in the copyright laws by substantially expanding the parameters of the "fair use" doctrine. Whether that's constitutional (insofar as the expansion would apply to existing copyrights) is hard to say, as the government's never really done anything like that so far as I know.
Here's a thought: Suppose Congress passed a law making an exception from the infringement laws for the creation of exact copies of copyrighted work (e.g., you can dupe a film and sell copies, but you can't sell colorized copies, or copies with missing scenes, etc.). Such a regime(*) would avoid some of the problems discussed above; in particular, you couldn't reattribute a work to yourself, and it seems -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that the GPL, LGPL and similar schemes would survive. Again, this proposal probably raises constitutional issues. It might, however, be attractive to some copyright holders, particularly those who make their money from advertising embedded into copyrighted work (e.g., television networks). I'd be interested in hearing if anyone is aware of any serious discussions of such proposals.
[* If you don't know, legal types informally call complex statutory structures "regimes"; the term has nothing to do with the third world sense of the word.]
Like the majority of college students, I went right to college from high school. In retrospect, it would have done me no harm whatsoever to have asked my college admissions office to defer my admission for one year (or two) so that I could have done something -- worked, volunteered, served in the military, what-have-you -- which would have given me a taste of the real world before I went to college. My understanding is that most colleges are relatively generous about granting such deferments; high school students who are confronting this dilemma might look into it.
Bradley is an impressive character, and he had a surprisingly large turnout among volunteers (perhaps 3-1 in numbers over Gore). If you're interested seeing how the man walks and talks in a relatively informal setting, check the C-Span schedule over the next few days; they had a crew there taping the event. Worth checking out if you won't vote Republican but don't find Gore an attractive candidate.
(Apropos of nothing, having checked the C-Span schedule just now, I find that no less a grey eminence than Jon Katz will be appearing on C-Span tomorrow morning (Sunday, April 10, 1999, at 8:27 a.m., repeating at 12:47 a.m. ET) as part of a panel discussion on writing biography. Love him or hate him, it's certain to be better than Sam & Cokie.)
What this article says (quite plainly, I think) is that while the concept of a compressed, readily exchangable digital audio format -- of which MP3 is one embodiment -- is clearly here to stay, notwithstanding the best efforts of the RIAA, kiss this particular embodiment of the concept goodbye the minute a better mousetrap comes along.
Ask yourself: If a new MP3-ish format came along with better sound quality, better compression rates, or -- last but certainly not least -- a public domain algorithm, wouldn't you switch in a heartbeat? If not, why not?
That having been said, here are some real questions to ask the author:
I'd be very interested to hear someone with some knowledge of audio compression theory, audio hardware, etc., speak to these issues. (I'm sure there are other issues I haven't thought of.) The less said about how CNN is trying to crush MP3, however, the better, because that's clearly not the point of the article.
I don't think this is exactly right: If the software vendor had absolutely no obligations whatsoever, the contract between the vendor and customer might be considered "unsupported by consideration" (ah, legal jargon) and therefore unenforceable as a contract.
More common, I think, are limitation of liability clauses which state that the vendor's liability is limited to a refund of the purchase price of the software license. Such limitations are common in many other industries as well, and are regularly enforced by courts.
[You might feel that such limitations are unconscionable, and should therefore be ignored by the courts. The standard reply is while courts can readily tell whether a contract is supported by some valuable consideration on both sides, it's not a court's job to evaluate whether a contract is a good deal -- it's the market's. If you don't like the terms of the software license, you should find another software vendor. That's the argument, anyway.]
Incidentally, contrary to evilpenguin's comment, it is not at all uncommon for businesses to sue their software vendors; in particular, many vendors have been (or anticipate being) sued as a result of the Y2K problem. Read a recent 10-Q or 10-K from any major software vendor for a discussion of this issue. It's relatively rare, I think, for ordinary consumers to sue software vendors, but you can read about one such case at the web site of the Milberg Weiss law firm (search with the keyword Issokson -- it's a Y2K case).
Ignoring implementation costs leads to a peculiar definition of "most efficient." Suppose you invented a way of making your home as energy efficient as possible, which would save you $10 a month in electric bills. Would it be worth spending $1 million to remodel your house to get this efficiency gain? Clearly not: The present value of the infinite string of $10 payments is a few thousand dollars at most. How is this a failure of the market?
I think there are basically two ideas of market failure at work here:
The point of the article (as I understand it) is that Dvorak's advantage over QWERTY, if any, is not so large such that either market failures (1) and (2) can be said to have occurred. (Putting it another way, Dvorak's advantage over QWERTY is like the $10/month advantage in energy efficiency in my example: Too small to justify the implementation costs.)