Tell you what. You buy one, then sell it to me. When it comes to the next shareholder meeting, go along anyway and claim that you simply licensed it to me, so you still own it, and also all clones and derivative works based on it.
Alleged writer. Innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Based on this report, the evidence so far is one witness of unknown competence. "Testing the infection"? I "tested the infection" yesterday by making sure that AVG can contain Blaster.
Oh, I'm sure that the FBI aren't (quite) dumb enough to announce this without doing some investigation, but the fact that they're announcing it as a fait accompli before they've even made the arrest indicates that this is a PR exercise.
But that's irrelevant speculation, because whatever their or my or your opinion on it, this guy is innocent... pause for breath... until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Let's drop the tabloid press pack mentality here.
The only way that I can see it working is if stores keep a record of all RFIDs that they have in stock, and then only charge you if the RFID matches when you walk out.
How are they planning to actually administrate that? Scan all products on the way in? So they shove a pallet full of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs though their stock door and a mondo scanner reads the RFIDs off of every box? Or do they scan a barcode or type in a code that just says what should be on the stack?
What I'm interested in is the possibility of deliveries getting screwed up and RFIDs getting entered into the wrong systems. There's the problem with buying something at store X then store Y thinking that it belongs to them, but there's a problem for the stores as well. If you want to buy something and for some reason the RFID isn't on their system, how do they sell it to you? And should you buy it, knowing that the RFID might appear on their or store Y's system at some point?
And given that the biggest theft problem that many stores (especially supermarkets) face is employee theft, do they need RFID scanners on all their doors? If stock does go missing while it's still on the system, what happens to those RFID numbers? Do they just sit in there indefinitely, or is there a plan for removing them? What happens when Joe Customer walks in wearing or carrying something that he's bought second hand from an employee or shoplifter who obtained a five finger discount?
It won't take many of these incidents to put a hell of a dent in consumer confidence over RFID, quite aside from the privacy issue of stores knowing that you're wearing a rubber g-string and fishnet stockings under your suit pants.
Other probable causes: being unusually calm (as determined and reported by the cop) or being unusually emotional (as determined and reported by the cop). Probable cause is a fucking joke. The probable cause is that the cop wanted to, and you weren't wearing an expensive enough suit.
They have no intention of letting any of these suits run to conclusion in court, because they will lose, and lose badly, and that will be the end of their stock pumping.
On even numbered days, they're reasonable guys with a great product, so buy their stock.
On odd numbered days, they're stone cold corporate predators who own half the source code on the planet, so buy their stock.
On Sundays, Darl consults his Magic 8 Ball (tm) to decide if it's time to cash in and skip to Brazil for the face change operation, or whether he should pump for another week.
Now, tell us why exactly we want more "home users" of the type that want a system that has one button to do everything, and to have it pre-pressed before it leaves the factory? Leverage to get more vendor supplied hardware support, sure, but then we're just going to end up with "linux" systems choked with binary only modules. That's not a system that I'm interested in contributing to.
But I think it's a moot point. Look five years down the line. We'll have actual general purpose PCs running KDE/GNOME/X/GNU/Lunix, we'll have Macs, we'll have Son of XP Pro on corporate machines, and for home users, we'll have Grandson of XBox, the Palladium (or whatever they call it today) crippled Disney controlled locked down, DMCA protected media box running rented apps and rented media.
Microsoft can have the "home user" market, as far as I'm concerned, and welcome to it.
Sure, they're lying about the reason, it's about money. Sure, it's possibly a futile, perhaps even a counter productive gesture; if you have to stop using a hooky Symantec product, you might end up giving money to one of their competitors. But that doesn't alter the basic rightness of their position.
Frankly, I'm surprised there's even a story here. I call -1 flamebait on this story.
That the RIAA are going to be able to demonstrate that the balance of probability (the criteria in a civil case) is heavily on their side? They don't have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, they just have to show that it's more likely that nycfashiongirl is using and sharing someone else's copy.
What's especially damning is that even nycfashiongirl's lawyer seems to get that. You'd think that if she was telling the truth about these being rips made by her from CDs that she owns, they'd demonstrate that they could re-create them. But no, now that's irrelevent, it's all about the contitution. If the facts are against you, argue the law, eh?
Hmm, didn't we used to be in favor of the RIAA taking careful aim at individual sharers rather than blasting away at P2P in general? Seems to me like they're pretty confident that they've got the right target in their sights this time.
Re:Please join the mandrake club.
on
Mandrake 9.2 RC1
·
· Score: 1
"steal"? Firstly, fuck you, buddy. Secondly, what's Mandrake's business plan to get itself off of welfare? Why should I piss money down that particular drain?
I'm open to reasoned persuasion, but not to empty emotional emotional rhetoric.
It's the difference between software engineering and hacking. They want a new feature? Fine, ask them for requirements and use cases. Hard copies. Signed. Put a positive spin on it by asking them they'd rather you did it right, or did it twice. Document everything, confirm every conversation by email, attach your schedule to every document, actually move your completion dates every time a piece of new work hits you, and never, ever tolerate the scam that you're only scheduled for (e.g.) 80% of your time, and you can fit in the extra work (along with holidays, training (hah!), sickness and meetings) into that other 20%. It's bullshit, and management need to be called out on it.
The subpoena was served on her ISP, not on her. How is that a search or siezure on her "person, house, papers, and effects". Because I don't see "information" in that list.
It seems to me, and I'm sure it will seem to the RIAA lawyers, that this subpoena is between them and the ISP. And, much as I loathe the RI|MPAA, on this specific issue, I find myself in agreement with them.
All true. And all things that have been said since about 1994. And yet the computer controlled behaviour in every commercially successful game is still the simplest possible state machine that makes a reasonable job of it.
Why is this?
Based on my experience in the games industry, it's because some socially inept maths savant sits for a year drawing lines and boxes on bits of paper and dribbling on about paradigm breaking feedback loops and fuzzy logic, then produces code that proceeds to bump into the nearest tree or rock and start humping it. While he draws more lines and boxes, one of the generic code monkeys (on about half his salary) lashes up a state machine that does the minimum that it needs to do to let them get on with testing. Curiously, the paradigm breaking AI never gets off the bits of paper and into actual in game behaviour.
I'm sure it's not always done that way. Smart companies will skip the step of hiring the maths savant and just have a code monkey lash up the state machine on day one.
Where exactly in the fourth amendment is the right to anonymity? Where is anonymity enumerated as being part of due process? Where does the fourth amendment specify that a judge rather than a clerk has to approve subpoenas?
If the argument is going to be "What I think the Constitution meant to say was..." then - given that the opposition are the best lawyers that the RIAA can afford - this is going to be a short trial.
Given that the DMCA requires you to list the infringing works, and to support that with "Oath or affirmation", then the only arguing point is whether a clerk should issue a subpoena, or whether the complainant has to convince a judge first. Given the impact this would have on civil cases, both practically and in principle, I confidently predict that it will be laughed out of court.
But he's not up against me, he's up against the best that the RIAA can afford. If he can't convince me that he's got a case, how is he going to do when they set about him?
>Under the DMCA willful violation of copyright is a CRIMINAL offence as well as a civil one. Thus a subpoena demonstrating the existence of infringing material may well lead to a criminal prosecution.
Which would be an argument in a criminal prosecution. This, however, is a civil case. That gives it a hell of a long and wandering way to go before it reaches a court which will strike the law.
> The argument is that the LAW is unconstitutional
OK, I understand that, but I still want to know what the constitutional grounds are. Where exactly in the fourth amendment (which is what I'm assuming) is the right to anonymity?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Which is why the DMCA specifies that the infringement claims are made under penalty of perjury. What he seems to be about to argue is that good faith isn't enough, and that complainants have to somehow prove their case before they bring it. I can't see how he's going to argue this in a way that doesn't make it look as though he's simply trying to keep a civil case out of court.
Based on this interview, he's going to argue that people can't be identified in a civil suit until we know that what they're being sued for is actionable.
Psst, Glenn, in a civil suit there is no presumption of innocence, and quite literally no prejudice. The result of the suit is the indication of whether the case is actionable. There's no stigma attached - in the eyes of the law - if it fails, and if you believe otherwise, your response should be a counter-suit to show that, not an argument that a suit can't be brought against you.
No, IANAL, but I'm wondering how much of a lawyer Glenn really is. He mentions constitutional issues five times, but doesn't expand on what those are, or why they'd apply in a civil suit.
I wish him and Jane the best of luck, but on this basis, they're really going to need it.
Um, what has Eric or OSI got to do with Linux, and what the hell gives him the right to speak about the GPL that he eschewed? When Eric decided to spin Free into Open and repackage it for easier consumption by pointy haired bosses, he lost all credibility as a spokesdroid for anything associated with Linux, GNU, FSF or any other GPL project. Just because Eric pooh-poohs the difference doesn't mean that it's not there. Every time he implies or asserts that open == free, and that he can speak for everyone, he just pisses off GPL/FSF advocates and drives a wedge deeper between the two camps.
OSI and FSF can live and work together, but only if Eric stops trying to assimilate FSF or deny the differences.
"our"? "the community"? Are you actually unaware that there's a difference between OSI and FSF, between open and free? There is no single "community", and every time OSI types like Eric assume or assert that there is, it just drives the wedge deeper between Open and Free. RMS might be a filthy socialist hippy, but everything that's happening now with SCO, he predicted years ago, while ESR was busy trying to work out how he could repackage free as open, and make a fortune off of it.
It's all fake. My god, Letterman and co started using cameras that selectively soft focus just their faces back in 1996. Madonna's getting younger every day, and then there's Britney "panting like a dog" Spears and her "it's not lip syncing, it's just singing real quiet under a pre-recorded mix".
If it passes through a piece of electronics, it's fake. If you don't see it with your own eyes, and hear it with your own ears, it's fake. That's not a judgement - when I'm watching fake titties bounce, I don't like to be distracted by off key wailing - just an observation.
Slashdot Mirror
Read my lips: No. New. Lawsuits.
To quote the great philosopher Sabrina the Teenage Witch:
Sabrina: I will play blackjack, but I will not understand it.
Judge: If you understood it, you wouldn't play it.
>The line is drawn here, NO further! (Obligatory Star Trek referrence added) ;)
You're saying we should blow up IBM to prevent any further SCO assimilation?
Tell you what. You buy one, then sell it to me. When it comes to the next shareholder meeting, go along anyway and claim that you simply licensed it to me, so you still own it, and also all clones and derivative works based on it.
Or have we forgotten how the system works?
Alleged writer. Innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Based on this report, the evidence so far is one witness of unknown competence. "Testing the infection"? I "tested the infection" yesterday by making sure that AVG can contain Blaster.
Oh, I'm sure that the FBI aren't (quite) dumb enough to announce this without doing some investigation, but the fact that they're announcing it as a fait accompli before they've even made the arrest indicates that this is a PR exercise.
But that's irrelevant speculation, because whatever their or my or your opinion on it, this guy is innocent... pause for breath... until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Let's drop the tabloid press pack mentality here.
The only way that I can see it working is if stores keep a record of all RFIDs that they have in stock, and then only charge you if the RFID matches when you walk out.
How are they planning to actually administrate that? Scan all products on the way in? So they shove a pallet full of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs though their stock door and a mondo scanner reads the RFIDs off of every box? Or do they scan a barcode or type in a code that just says what should be on the stack?
What I'm interested in is the possibility of deliveries getting screwed up and RFIDs getting entered into the wrong systems. There's the problem with buying something at store X then store Y thinking that it belongs to them, but there's a problem for the stores as well. If you want to buy something and for some reason the RFID isn't on their system, how do they sell it to you? And should you buy it, knowing that the RFID might appear on their or store Y's system at some point?
And given that the biggest theft problem that many stores (especially supermarkets) face is employee theft, do they need RFID scanners on all their doors? If stock does go missing while it's still on the system, what happens to those RFID numbers? Do they just sit in there indefinitely, or is there a plan for removing them? What happens when Joe Customer walks in wearing or carrying something that he's bought second hand from an employee or shoplifter who obtained a five finger discount?
It won't take many of these incidents to put a hell of a dent in consumer confidence over RFID, quite aside from the privacy issue of stores knowing that you're wearing a rubber g-string and fishnet stockings under your suit pants.
Other probable causes: being unusually calm (as determined and reported by the cop) or being unusually emotional (as determined and reported by the cop). Probable cause is a fucking joke. The probable cause is that the cop wanted to, and you weren't wearing an expensive enough suit.
They have no intention of letting any of these suits run to conclusion in court, because they will lose, and lose badly, and that will be the end of their stock pumping.
On even numbered days, they're reasonable guys with a great product, so buy their stock.
On odd numbered days, they're stone cold corporate predators who own half the source code on the planet, so buy their stock.
On Sundays, Darl consults his Magic 8 Ball (tm) to decide if it's time to cash in and skip to Brazil for the face change operation, or whether he should pump for another week.
Now, tell us why exactly we want more "home users" of the type that want a system that has one button to do everything, and to have it pre-pressed before it leaves the factory? Leverage to get more vendor supplied hardware support, sure, but then we're just going to end up with "linux" systems choked with binary only modules. That's not a system that I'm interested in contributing to.
But I think it's a moot point. Look five years down the line. We'll have actual general purpose PCs running KDE/GNOME/X/GNU/Lunix, we'll have Macs, we'll have Son of XP Pro on corporate machines, and for home users, we'll have Grandson of XBox, the Palladium (or whatever they call it today) crippled Disney controlled locked down, DMCA protected media box running rented apps and rented media.
Microsoft can have the "home user" market, as far as I'm concerned, and welcome to it.
Unequivocably so. They offer a time limited trial version, so there is absolutely no excuse, none, for not using a morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably legit version.
Sure, they're lying about the reason, it's about money. Sure, it's possibly a futile, perhaps even a counter productive gesture; if you have to stop using a hooky Symantec product, you might end up giving money to one of their competitors. But that doesn't alter the basic rightness of their position.
Frankly, I'm surprised there's even a story here. I call -1 flamebait on this story.
That the RIAA are going to be able to demonstrate that the balance of probability (the criteria in a civil case) is heavily on their side? They don't have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, they just have to show that it's more likely that nycfashiongirl is using and sharing someone else's copy.
What's especially damning is that even nycfashiongirl's lawyer seems to get that. You'd think that if she was telling the truth about these being rips made by her from CDs that she owns, they'd demonstrate that they could re-create them. But no, now that's irrelevent, it's all about the contitution. If the facts are against you, argue the law, eh?
Hmm, didn't we used to be in favor of the RIAA taking careful aim at individual sharers rather than blasting away at P2P in general? Seems to me like they're pretty confident that they've got the right target in their sights this time.
So, what's our reason to object now?
Where do you think you are? Kuro5hin? ;-P
"steal"? Firstly, fuck you, buddy. Secondly, what's Mandrake's business plan to get itself off of welfare? Why should I piss money down that particular drain?
I'm open to reasoned persuasion, but not to empty emotional emotional rhetoric.
It's the difference between software engineering and hacking. They want a new feature? Fine, ask them for requirements and use cases. Hard copies. Signed. Put a positive spin on it by asking them they'd rather you did it right, or did it twice. Document everything, confirm every conversation by email, attach your schedule to every document, actually move your completion dates every time a piece of new work hits you, and never, ever tolerate the scam that you're only scheduled for (e.g.) 80% of your time, and you can fit in the extra work (along with holidays, training (hah!), sickness and meetings) into that other 20%. It's bullshit, and management need to be called out on it.
And what's your uninformed, anonymous, cowardly opinion on this matter? I take it that you disagree with me? On what grounds, exactly?
The subpoena was served on her ISP, not on her. How is that a search or siezure on her "person, house, papers, and effects". Because I don't see "information" in that list.
It seems to me, and I'm sure it will seem to the RIAA lawyers, that this subpoena is between them and the ISP. And, much as I loathe the RI|MPAA, on this specific issue, I find myself in agreement with them.
All true. And all things that have been said since about 1994. And yet the computer controlled behaviour in every commercially successful game is still the simplest possible state machine that makes a reasonable job of it.
Why is this?
Based on my experience in the games industry, it's because some socially inept maths savant sits for a year drawing lines and boxes on bits of paper and dribbling on about paradigm breaking feedback loops and fuzzy logic, then produces code that proceeds to bump into the nearest tree or rock and start humping it. While he draws more lines and boxes, one of the generic code monkeys (on about half his salary) lashes up a state machine that does the minimum that it needs to do to let them get on with testing. Curiously, the paradigm breaking AI never gets off the bits of paper and into actual in game behaviour.
I'm sure it's not always done that way. Smart companies will skip the step of hiring the maths savant and just have a code monkey lash up the state machine on day one.
Lest I go hoarse from repeating myself:
Where exactly in the fourth amendment is the right to anonymity? Where is anonymity enumerated as being part of due process? Where does the fourth amendment specify that a judge rather than a clerk has to approve subpoenas?
If the argument is going to be "What I think the Constitution meant to say was..." then - given that the opposition are the best lawyers that the RIAA can afford - this is going to be a short trial.
Given that the DMCA requires you to list the infringing works, and to support that with "Oath or affirmation", then the only arguing point is whether a clerk should issue a subpoena, or whether the complainant has to convince a judge first. Given the impact this would have on civil cases, both practically and in principle, I confidently predict that it will be laughed out of court.
But he's not up against me, he's up against the best that the RIAA can afford. If he can't convince me that he's got a case, how is he going to do when they set about him?
That's a lot more appealing from a marketing point of view than the alternative way of looking at it:
Air Traffic Tammy: "Roger delta foxtrot bravo niner, continue on that glide path."
Clippy2: "It looks like you're writing a letter! Do you want help with that?"
Air Traffic Tammy: "The hell? Get off my screen, you piece of crap!"
Clippy2: "It sounds like you're becoming tired and snippy! Do you want me to take over?"
Air Traffic Tammy: "Shut up! Get off the screen! Exit! Undo! Quit!"
Clippy2: "I landed that plane for you! In the lake, right?"
>Under the DMCA willful violation of copyright is a CRIMINAL offence as well as a civil one. Thus a subpoena demonstrating the existence of infringing material may well lead to a criminal prosecution.
Which would be an argument in a criminal prosecution. This, however, is a civil case. That gives it a hell of a long and wandering way to go before it reaches a court which will strike the law.
> The argument is that the LAW is unconstitutional
OK, I understand that, but I still want to know what the constitutional grounds are. Where exactly in the fourth amendment (which is what I'm assuming) is the right to anonymity?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Which is why the DMCA specifies that the infringement claims are made under penalty of perjury. What he seems to be about to argue is that good faith isn't enough, and that complainants have to somehow prove their case before they bring it. I can't see how he's going to argue this in a way that doesn't make it look as though he's simply trying to keep a civil case out of court.
Based on this interview, he's going to argue that people can't be identified in a civil suit until we know that what they're being sued for is actionable.
Psst, Glenn, in a civil suit there is no presumption of innocence, and quite literally no prejudice. The result of the suit is the indication of whether the case is actionable. There's no stigma attached - in the eyes of the law - if it fails, and if you believe otherwise, your response should be a counter-suit to show that, not an argument that a suit can't be brought against you.
No, IANAL, but I'm wondering how much of a lawyer Glenn really is. He mentions constitutional issues five times, but doesn't expand on what those are, or why they'd apply in a civil suit.
I wish him and Jane the best of luck, but on this basis, they're really going to need it.
Um, what has Eric or OSI got to do with Linux, and what the hell gives him the right to speak about the GPL that he eschewed? When Eric decided to spin Free into Open and repackage it for easier consumption by pointy haired bosses, he lost all credibility as a spokesdroid for anything associated with Linux, GNU, FSF or any other GPL project. Just because Eric pooh-poohs the difference doesn't mean that it's not there. Every time he implies or asserts that open == free, and that he can speak for everyone, he just pisses off GPL/FSF advocates and drives a wedge deeper between the two camps.
OSI and FSF can live and work together, but only if Eric stops trying to assimilate FSF or deny the differences.
"our"? "the community"? Are you actually unaware that there's a difference between OSI and FSF, between open and free? There is no single "community", and every time OSI types like Eric assume or assert that there is, it just drives the wedge deeper between Open and Free. RMS might be a filthy socialist hippy, but everything that's happening now with SCO, he predicted years ago, while ESR was busy trying to work out how he could repackage free as open, and make a fortune off of it.
It's all fake. My god, Letterman and co started using cameras that selectively soft focus just their faces back in 1996. Madonna's getting younger every day, and then there's Britney "panting like a dog" Spears and her "it's not lip syncing, it's just singing real quiet under a pre-recorded mix".
If it passes through a piece of electronics, it's fake. If you don't see it with your own eyes, and hear it with your own ears, it's fake. That's not a judgement - when I'm watching fake titties bounce, I don't like to be distracted by off key wailing - just an observation.