Where do you get your information, out of a cereal box? Due to the Tipper Gore's actions, tons of rap and other music has been pulled from chains such as Walmart and K-mart. Other music has been "Sanitized for Your Protection", meaning lyrics have been altered or eliminated, even for adult purchasers. She wrote a whole book about how proud she was of censoring this music, "Raising a PG Child in an X-Rated World" I believe the title was. PMRC describes rap music as a "secondary form of child abuse". See my page at http://censorware.org/pics/primer/ and then tell me whether PMRC is promoting labeling or censorship (there's no distinction between the two, really).
Given that the internet allows users to seek out and verify information for themselves to a much greater extent than previously possible, will this affect the typical lying and obfuscation of political campaigns? That is, I can retrieve information about Gore's campaign and see that in Bumfucht, Idaho he promised a group of veterans that he would increase spending on national offense, while three days later in Nowhere, Ohio, he swore up and down to a local Rotary Club that he would eliminate wasteful military spending.
Will the increased access to information force politicians to actually have consistent stances, or will the politicians fail to wise up, treat everything as "business as usual", and continue alienating a large portion of the population through pervasive pandering, mushy beliefs that depend on who they're talking to, and outright lies? -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
You are, of course, wrong. The scheme works like this:
1) the software won't operate unless it is allowed to contact a remote server during operation. So if you want to use the software at all, you'll open the hole in the firewall.
2) If you break the license agreement or are suspected of breaking it, the next time your software tries to verify that it's authorized to operate, it won't. Boom, it shuts itself off. Remotely disabled.
And while I'm at it, there's no PR firm behind the campaign to *defeat* UCITA. There *are* a whole lot of pro-consumer groups who don't like to see the software industry writing laws which screw consumers. Microsoft has spent millions to get UCITA passed so far, the budget on the other side is approximately zero.
I personally have received much flamage for posting announcements of software before it's really ready to be announced. And if you look at every single one of the slashdot Red Hat announcements the previous poster listed, there's about ten people complaining "why is this being posted here, this isn't news". AND freshmeat exists, and does an incredibly thorough job.
With all that said, if the previous poster really cares about whether it's posted or not, just keep submitting it. There's a bunch of people with posting privileges now, and only one has to find it newsworthy for it to go up...
I know, it's terribly amateurish and boneheaded to point out that NASA has paid hundreds of millions of dollars and that Russia has fulfilled their end of the bargain by sending up... nothing.
I'll do my best to keep up this level of amateurishness and boneheadedness in the future. Thanks for your input. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
IANAL, but it seems to me that in one fell swoop this judge has just said that there is no such thing as fair use. Are there any lawyers out there who can say for certain if I am correct in this assumption?
Well, yes. This is the whole point. Under traditional law, copyright does not give copyright-holders the ability to restrict you in certain ways, such as restricting the sale of books you've bought (the "first sale" doctrine) or making a backup copy, or copying a small part of a work ("fair use"). Technology has now given copyright holders the technical ability to restrict those things, and the DMCA makes it a felony to produce a device which can circumvent them, and when the other part of the law goes into effect later this year, will make it a felony to circumvent them. So in theory, you have the right to resell or copy work you've bought - but technology can prevent that, and if you circumvent the technology, you're breaking the law. "Fair use" was never explicitly eliminated, but it effectively was.
Copyright law says you can make a backup copy, or play your cassette tape on any machine you want, but the DMCA says that using any sort of digital content in any way that the copyright holder doesn't explicitly permit makes you a felon.
Welcome to the new world of copyright. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
This is not at all a good assumption. Government generally has the power to establish how contracts work, and since the Constitution does not cover things like "Thou shalt not make click-wrap licenses valid", the court system doesn't have any sort of leg to stand on to overturn the law.
This is part of the fundamental problem with UCITA - we are used to enjoying certain standards in our dealings with others. If you buy a defective product, you expect to have the right to return it. You don't expect to have to agree not to criticize the company or product when you install a piece of software. UCITA would change these fundamental assumptions about "how things should work", and not in your favor, either. It's dangerous.
It's the right to fly, period. Airline searches are mandated by the FAA - you cannot fly on any airline today without them. This is a government search, not something where libertarians can say "go do business with another airline". -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
At least in the US, where it's not being rammed down our throats...
What country do you live in? There are bills before Congress right now that would require censorware in every school and library across the country.
Students in schools are rarely left unsupervised; if a student wishes to access a relevant site (by his criteria) that is blocked, it could be "unlocked" by the faculty member supervising.
If the students are supervised, what need is there for censorware? How would the faculty member determine if it were relevant or not? If it's banned, you don't see the page. Quick, tell me whether this URL:
http://www.somesite.com/~joeuser/
has porn or an essay on Mark Twain. The handicap is that you're not allowed to visit the URL to determine this. No, in the real world, banned sites are never overridden - the user can't tell whether a site should or should not be banned, the supervisor can't tell either. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
what if they're looking for information about abortion and get blocked?" Then the "censorware" is not doing it's job.
On the contrary, then it is. There's plenty of people who support banning information about abortion, including the U.S. Congress - we have several laws on the books right now that making printing or disseminating information about abortion a felony (the most recent one passed in 1996), only they can't be enforced because they're unconstitutional. The way around that little hindrance called the Constitution is censorware - many products including those used in schools and libraries state flat out that they ban all information about sex including abortion information. People want to ban abortion information. If you let them censor things, this is one of their first targets. Deal with it.
Age laws draw no distinction on maturity.
This isn't something to be proud of. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
People have already a put a lot of effort into building weather-proof, battery- and solar-powered cases which can hang on telephone poles for applications such as environmental monitoring. They hang them along highways (some of them have a hook on top to hang from a telephone pole and come with a big forked stick to facilitate getting them down from the pole), then you come back in a month to check what sort of pollution is being produced. Don't reinvent the wheel here, talk to one of those companies and see about getting some cases, maybe with power supplies included but without the environmental equipment. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Their website is up and the article is available to me. Something funny about your net connection, I would guess. Have you tried accessing it through anonymizer.com or some other proxy?
The difference between slashdot and the news media you're used to is that they don't tell you when they get the story wrong. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:That's why we told them to fuck off, and they d
on
Waiting for the Knock
·
· Score: 2
You're wrong. As the Stallman article points out, if you'd bothered to read it, the controversial parts are being removed from the e-commerce bill, to be reintroduced in a "Regulation of Investigatory Powers" bill. Stallman is trying, among other things, to keep people from being deluded that they've eliminated these provisions - they're just moved to clear the way for the e-commerce bill to pass immediately.
I pay fairly close attention to the UK situation and though it's possible that I would post something out of date, in this case at least, I'm more up to date than you are...
Most countries (EU) do not have the right to jury trial because a jury trial isn't a guarantee that you get a fair trial...
But this is totally backwards. The defendant has a right to a jury trial, not a requirement for one - in the U.S., the defendant can choose either a jury trial or a trial with only a judge, depending on which he thinks is in his better interests. This gives the defendant the best shot at a fair trial available - if the government is screwing him, he can take the case to the people. If he's afraid he'll lose because the people will dislike him, he can rely on the judge who will presumably adhere strictly to the law. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I would like to second the recommendation on Fluxx. It's available at hobby shops - look around. Most card games get boring. Every game of Fluxx is different. Most times there's one good strategy to follow. This doesn't work well in Fluxx. It is possible - though rather unlikely - for the very first player to win the game on his very first turn, with nobody else even playing, despite the fact that when the game starts, there is no victory condition at all. It is also possible a game could go for an hour.
Actually, it was just a self-referential joke - I use Win95/98 on a daily basis and Linux very rarely, so I was joking that... oh, never mind. Didn't mean to pull your wind-up string, buddy. Sounds like you need to go frag someone - and since there are any post offices open this time of night, I hope it will be in Quake. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Oz - an example of copyrights working well
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
I just checked into this, and it looks like the copyright on his original book expired in 1956 - before the most recent copyright-extension craze hit. Other books based on Baum's Oz have been written since then - this is a wonderful example of how a story that has passed into the public domain provides a fertile ground for other writers/creators. The other books seem to be still under copyright, but at least the original source is free. See a FAQ. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Moderators should moderate this up to five. If I had to point to the three people most knowledgeable in the U.S. on domain name disputes, Professor Froomkin would be one of the three. This is like getting a perl question answered by Schwartz or Wall. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
But "derivatives" of a name, as you called them, are not the same as the name itself. Purdue Online is a different animal from www.purdueuniversity.com. Purdue is a university, not an ISP. People must remember that there are many different categories of trademarks. Purdue surely owns one for an educational institution - that's one category. If someone tried to open up an online college calling it purdue-anything, Purdue would be right to be peeved.
But the same mark can be legitimately used in multiple categories. The classic example is "apple" - there's a company that has a trademark for "apple" for computers, and a different one for banking services, and several others for other services or trades. Apple Bank has no right to sue Apple Computers for the apple.com name - they are in different lines of business, apple.com is not pretending to be the bank, etc. etc.
Your last line - consult a lawyer - is of course correct. But I wanted to emphasize to this guy and others in similar situations that they need not automatically bow down to domain name hijacking from companies, universities, or anyone else who covets your domain name. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Individuals attempting to sell domain names are branded "cybersquatters", even if their rights to the name are totally without blemish. Your lawyer acts as your proxy in this situation to negotiate a business deal. This is simply one situation where it is absolutely necessary to employ legal assistance. Your actions, trying to sell the domain name, can be used against you in court. Your lawyer's cannot.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you get your information, out of a cereal box? Due to the Tipper Gore's actions, tons of rap and other music has been pulled from chains such as Walmart and K-mart. Other music has been "Sanitized for Your Protection", meaning lyrics have been altered or eliminated, even for adult purchasers. She wrote a whole book about how proud she was of censoring this music, "Raising a PG Child in an X-Rated World" I believe the title was. PMRC describes rap music as a "secondary form of child abuse". See my page at http://censorware.org/pics/primer/ and then tell me whether PMRC is promoting labeling or censorship (there's no distinction between the two, really).
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Given that the internet allows users to seek out and verify information for themselves to a much greater extent than previously possible, will this affect the typical lying and obfuscation of political campaigns? That is, I can retrieve information about Gore's campaign and see that in Bumfucht, Idaho he promised a group of veterans that he would increase spending on national offense, while three days later in Nowhere, Ohio, he swore up and down to a local Rotary Club that he would eliminate wasteful military spending.
Will the increased access to information force politicians to actually have consistent stances, or will the politicians fail to wise up, treat everything as "business as usual", and continue alienating a large portion of the population through pervasive pandering, mushy beliefs that depend on who they're talking to, and outright lies?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
You are, of course, wrong. The scheme works like this:
1) the software won't operate unless it is allowed to contact a remote server during operation. So if you want to use the software at all, you'll open the hole in the firewall.
2) If you break the license agreement or are suspected of breaking it, the next time your software tries to verify that it's authorized to operate, it won't. Boom, it shuts itself off. Remotely disabled.
And while I'm at it, there's no PR firm behind the campaign to *defeat* UCITA. There *are* a whole lot of pro-consumer groups who don't like to see the software industry writing laws which screw consumers. Microsoft has spent millions to get UCITA passed so far, the budget on the other side is approximately zero.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Got anyone in mind?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I personally have received much flamage for posting announcements of software before it's really ready to be announced. And if you look at every single one of the slashdot Red Hat announcements the previous poster listed, there's about ten people complaining "why is this being posted here, this isn't news". AND freshmeat exists, and does an incredibly thorough job.
With all that said, if the previous poster really cares about whether it's posted or not, just keep submitting it. There's a bunch of people with posting privileges now, and only one has to find it newsworthy for it to go up...
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
This ain't freshmeat.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I know, it's terribly amateurish and boneheaded to point out that NASA has paid hundreds of millions of dollars and that Russia has fulfilled their end of the bargain by sending up ... nothing.
I'll do my best to keep up this level of amateurishness and boneheadedness in the future. Thanks for your input.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
IANAL, but it seems to me that in one fell swoop this judge has just said that there is no such thing as fair use. Are there any lawyers out there who can say for certain if I am correct in this assumption?
Well, yes. This is the whole point. Under traditional law, copyright does not give copyright-holders the ability to restrict you in certain ways, such as restricting the sale of books you've bought (the "first sale" doctrine) or making a backup copy, or copying a small part of a work ("fair use"). Technology has now given copyright holders the technical ability to restrict those things, and the DMCA makes it a felony to produce a device which can circumvent them, and when the other part of the law goes into effect later this year, will make it a felony to circumvent them. So in theory, you have the right to resell or copy work you've bought - but technology can prevent that, and if you circumvent the technology, you're breaking the law. "Fair use" was never explicitly eliminated, but it effectively was.
Copyright law says you can make a backup copy, or play your cassette tape on any machine you want, but the DMCA says that using any sort of digital content in any way that the copyright holder doesn't explicitly permit makes you a felon.
Welcome to the new world of copyright.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
This is not at all a good assumption. Government generally has the power to establish how contracts work, and since the Constitution does not cover things like "Thou shalt not make click-wrap licenses valid", the court system doesn't have any sort of leg to stand on to overturn the law.
This is part of the fundamental problem with UCITA - we are used to enjoying certain standards in our dealings with others. If you buy a defective product, you expect to have the right to return it. You don't expect to have to agree not to criticize the company or product when you install a piece of software. UCITA would change these fundamental assumptions about "how things should work", and not in your favor, either. It's dangerous.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
It's the right to fly, period. Airline searches are mandated by the FAA - you cannot fly on any airline today without them. This is a government search, not something where libertarians can say "go do business with another airline".
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
But it doesn't end with knight takes rook.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
It's a very good solution. except that that is White's sixth move, not fifth.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
At least in the US, where it's not being rammed down our throats...
What country do you live in? There are bills before Congress right now that would require censorware in every school and library across the country.
Students in schools are rarely left unsupervised; if a student wishes to access a relevant site (by his criteria) that is blocked, it could be "unlocked" by the faculty member supervising.
If the students are supervised, what need is there for censorware? How would the faculty member determine if it were relevant or not? If it's banned, you don't see the page. Quick, tell me whether this URL:
http://www.somesite.com/~joeuser/
has porn or an essay on Mark Twain. The handicap is that you're not allowed to visit the URL to determine this. No, in the real world, banned sites are never overridden - the user can't tell whether a site should or should not be banned, the supervisor can't tell either.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
what if they're looking for information about abortion and get blocked?" Then the "censorware" is not doing it's job.
On the contrary, then it is. There's plenty of people who support banning information about abortion, including the U.S. Congress - we have several laws on the books right now that making printing or disseminating information about abortion a felony (the most recent one passed in 1996), only they can't be enforced because they're unconstitutional. The way around that little hindrance called the Constitution is censorware - many products including those used in schools and libraries state flat out that they ban all information about sex including abortion information. People want to ban abortion information. If you let them censor things, this is one of their first targets. Deal with it.
Age laws draw no distinction on maturity.
This isn't something to be proud of.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I'm thinking something along the lines of this:
http://www.tisch-env.com/pq200.html
People have already a put a lot of effort into building weather-proof, battery- and solar-powered cases which can hang on telephone poles for applications such as environmental monitoring. They hang them along highways (some of them have a hook on top to hang from a telephone pole and come with a big forked stick to facilitate getting them down from the pole), then you come back in a month to check what sort of pollution is being produced. Don't reinvent the wheel here, talk to one of those companies and see about getting some cases, maybe with power supplies included but without the environmental equipment.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Their website is up and the article is available to me. Something funny about your net connection, I would guess. Have you tried accessing it through anonymizer.com or some other proxy?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
The difference between slashdot and the news media you're used to is that they don't tell you when they get the story wrong.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
You're wrong. As the Stallman article points out, if you'd bothered to read it, the controversial parts are being removed from the e-commerce bill, to be reintroduced in a "Regulation of Investigatory Powers" bill. Stallman is trying, among other things, to keep people from being deluded that they've eliminated these provisions - they're just moved to clear the way for the e-commerce bill to pass immediately.
I pay fairly close attention to the UK situation and though it's possible that I would post something out of date, in this case at least, I'm more up to date than you are...
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Most countries (EU) do not have the right to jury trial because a jury trial isn't a guarantee
that you get a fair trial...
But this is totally backwards. The defendant has a right to a jury trial, not a requirement for one - in the U.S., the defendant can choose either a jury trial or a trial with only a judge, depending on which he thinks is in his better interests. This gives the defendant the best shot at a fair trial available - if the government is screwing him, he can take the case to the people. If he's afraid he'll lose because the people will dislike him, he can rely on the judge who will presumably adhere strictly to the law.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I would like to second the recommendation on Fluxx. It's available at hobby shops - look around. Most card games get boring. Every game of Fluxx is different. Most times there's one good strategy to follow. This doesn't work well in Fluxx. It is possible - though rather unlikely - for the very first player to win the game on his very first turn, with nobody else even playing, despite the fact that when the game starts, there is no victory condition at all. It is also possible a game could go for an hour.
A very good game, well worth the money.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Actually, it was just a self-referential joke - I use Win95/98 on a daily basis and Linux very rarely, so I was joking that... oh, never mind. Didn't mean to pull your wind-up string, buddy. Sounds like you need to go frag someone - and since there are any post offices open this time of night, I hope it will be in Quake.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I just checked into this, and it looks like the copyright on his original book expired in 1956 - before the most recent copyright-extension craze hit. Other books based on Baum's Oz have been written since then - this is a wonderful example of how a story that has passed into the public domain provides a fertile ground for other writers/creators. The other books seem to be still under copyright, but at least the original source is free. See a FAQ.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Moderators should moderate this up to five. If I had to point to the three people most knowledgeable in the U.S. on domain name disputes, Professor Froomkin would be one of the three. This is like getting a perl question answered by Schwartz or Wall.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
But "derivatives" of a name, as you called them, are not the same as the name itself. Purdue Online is a different animal from www.purdueuniversity.com. Purdue is a university, not an ISP. People must remember that there are many different categories of trademarks. Purdue surely owns one for an educational institution - that's one category. If someone tried to open up an online college calling it purdue-anything, Purdue would be right to be peeved.
But the same mark can be legitimately used in multiple categories. The classic example is "apple" - there's a company that has a trademark for "apple" for computers, and a different one for banking services, and several others for other services or trades. Apple Bank has no right to sue Apple Computers for the apple.com name - they are in different lines of business, apple.com is not pretending to be the bank, etc. etc.
Your last line - consult a lawyer - is of course correct. But I wanted to emphasize to this guy and others in similar situations that they need not automatically bow down to domain name hijacking from companies, universities, or anyone else who covets your domain name.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Individuals attempting to sell domain names are branded "cybersquatters", even if their rights to the name are totally without blemish. Your lawyer acts as your proxy in this situation to negotiate a business deal. This is simply one situation where it is absolutely necessary to employ legal assistance. Your actions, trying to sell the domain name, can be used against you in court. Your lawyer's cannot.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org