IANAL, but IMHO: While on the surface, these issues seem to be mirror-images of each other, there is a small but subtle difference that makes them unrelated. Napster's legal defense rests on the idea that they do not distribute mp3's--they only provide a channel of distribution. It is actually the users of Napster who distribute the (often copyrighted and pirated) music. Whereas, Offspring is distributing Napster merchandise, not simply providing a forum for this purpose. If Offspring were instead operating an auction site of some sort where users could go to sell Napster merchandise, then these would be parallel issues.
In my mind, Napster has no choice but to pursue the Offspring in the courts, if they wish to preserve the integrity of their argument. If they failed to do so by the reasoning of those in the Offspring camp, they would then be admitting to the charge that they (Napster) are distributors of illegal mp3's, and by extension, liable for damages.
I don't know if anyone else is concerned about this, since my comments are filtered at 4+, but what concerns me is not whether or not Mitnick profits from his computer related offenses, but whether his first amendment rights are being violated. It seems to me that there is no compelling reason to constrict his speech, when the Supreme Court has already handed down decisions that speech that may run counter to society's best interests is still protected. While convicted criminals do give up some rights, such as the right to vote or bear arms, I don't see any reason to strip them of the right to free speech. I don't really see any compelling reason to revoke their voting rights, either, but that's a different argument entirely. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this, or perhaps a more valid legal opinion?
A much more likely scenario is that your hardware is at fault here. I have trouble playing my cd-r's in older equipment sometimes, especially if the disk is relatively full.
The reason a stock goes down after an announcement like this is simple: dividends. While the media would have most people believing that the reason to buy a stock is because it will appreciate in value, this is misleading; the reason a stock appreciates in value is that its profit margin, which stockholders each get a proportional piece of, goes up. When you announce you're going to be spending a nice chunk of change on something, whether its a good idea or a bad one, it means that the profits will go down for a quarter or two, and there's no dividends to be had. Thus, financial managers (ie mutual fund managers etc) sell the stock off to buy something that will make some profit. Then they buy it back when its low. If you have Corel stock, now is NOT the time to sell; hang on to it for a few years. If you have a few thousand laying around in a CD somewhere ready to mature, I would put it in something like this. In a few years, Corel at 10 is going to be a pleasant memory.
AS ALWAYS, these opinions are my own. I rarely successfully balance my checkbook, so take financial advice from me with a grain of salt.
I am apparently in the minority here, at least among the moderated-up posters... I love skins. I use them constantly. Why? BECAUSE IT KEEPS OTHER PEOPLE OUT OF MY SHIT!!!!!! When my computer-illiterate roommates and girlfriend sit down to steal time on my box at home, I want them to be scared shitless of the interface. Sometimes I even go so far as to set up cryptic menu commands that do nothing more than call up harmless xmessages asking whether they really think doing X is a good idea. As I'm sure many people in the slashdot community do, I spend the better part of my waking hours in front of a computer, either at work or at home. I customize it for MY usability--not everyone elses. When other people start using my windows box, my stuff invariably gets lost, broken or deleted. At home thankfully the situation isn't that bad--thank god for permissions. All the same, I don't particularly care for my better half to be able to sit down at my running Xsession and "accidentally" find my email exchanges with ex's, etc... My point is, skins allow me to make the interface something I'm comfortable with, something that scores envy points with my roommates, and something that keeps people honest. but even more so, skins are about the freedom to customize. While most of america may be content to sit in uniform cubicles staring at cookie-cutter computers all day long--indeed, this is a concept by no means limited to computer usage--those of us who desire independence should not be forced into a mold cast by the likes of bill gates.
The search engines don't make illegal MP3s available, they just happen to make them easier to find, while at the same time making legal ones easier to find. Hey, you're preachin' to the choir, here. But the fact of the matter is that according to both case law and legislation, helping someone find pirated, copyrighted works is against the law. Even if at the same time you're helping someone find legitimate mp3's.
Which may be exactly what the company or organization wants. From past discussions here, it seems that most people beleive that the company you work for has a right to know what is being done with the company's machines. A stealthy tool such as BO may fit the bill for such a company. Since monitoring your employees is not illegal, I think it should be considered to be a legitimate tool. Monitoring your employees isn't against the law; monitoring employees of other companies is. My point is that the stealth mode of BO makes it too easy to insert this program into a computer from outside an organization without anyone's knowledge. Ever wonder what all those cutsy little programs people sent through email are all about? CDC's first version of BO was designed explicitly for this purpose. The second version may be legit, but you can't convince me the first wasn't anything but.
Regarding culpability, the question is not legality but the legitimate uses of a given product. Take, for instance, mp3 search engines... they don't do anything blatantly illegal; all they do is provide a listing of where on the net you might find a given mp3. Its the actions of those who put mp3s on the web and those who download them that are illegal. However, because there are no legitimate uses for such a search engine, or at least, the legitimate uses are by-and-large non-used (yes, i am aware that there are non-copyrighted mp3s out there) the search engine remains culpable in copyright infringement. now move on to subjects such as the aforementioned tools such as nmap. These tools can easily be misused to aid someone in cracking a system; however, they also have a very important legitimate use in helping sysadmins secure their networks. ethically, programmers are going to have to start taking a closer look at the tools they develop and whether the benefits of their legitimate uses outweigh the dangers of their misuse. BackOrifice's stealth mode, for example, is an example of one such tool. The benefits for a network administrator having such a close look at a users system are almost immeasurable; however, in stealth mode, the user has no knowledge he or she may be watched, which opens the door for crackers into an organization's system. The ethical question is not, should such a tool be developed (it should, IMHO) but should it be so easy to abuse? (it should not) The implication here is that in the not-so-distant future, programmers will be more limited in what we can program, not by lawyers, but by society's acceptance of what we do. While I don't think we'll ever be told what we can and can't write (nor should we be), our image as a community will be tarnished by our less scrupulous members, much the way the community of hackers has been by crackers and script kiddies, or the way lawyers have been given a bad rap by their (much more numerous) dickheads. currently one needs no certification to work professionally as a programmer or other computer professional. in the near future, however, this may change, unless we start policing ourselves and holding ourselves to a standard of ethics which society finds acceptable.
Laws making some crimes "hate crimes" is the same as affording some minorities special rights under the law, which is as discriminatory as the Jim Crow laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Premeditated murder is no more or less reprehensible than 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, depending on your state. However, some states have chosen to recognize that at the time of the murder the defendant in question may have been in a frame of mind which allowed him to do something that would ordinarily have been out of the question, or that the killing was accidental, if negligent. Penalties in most cases can be as severe as 1st degree murder; however, in cases of mitigating circumstances the judge is afforded the right to adjust sentence accordingly. Premeditated murder, on the other hand, shows that not only was the defendant capable of committing such an act, he or she did willfully plan and execute said act. While the effects of the two crimes are no less tragic, the second (premeditated murder) is evidence of greater anti-social tendencies in the defendant. Manslaughter (murder II in some states) also serves a useful purpose in the plea-bargaining process.
Cop-killers are more likely to face the death penalty not because cop-killing is a special crime, but because most cop-killings occur during the commission of another violent crime, which in most states is grounds for capital murder charges.
Equity does exist in the system; otherwise, it wouldn't be a crime at all to kill gays or african-americans. What proponents of hate crime bills are trying to do is balance smaller numbers with more equality; i.e. because there are fewer gays than straights, we should make them more equal than straights--its worse to kill one because there's fewer of them. That's crap. Premeditated murder has no lofty status--its simply intentional murder, whereas some killings are not necessarily so, and punishments are given accordingly.
Sentiment and law do not mix. yes, these murders were heinous. yes, it makes me sick that I am a member of a species that is capable of such rage, such hate that one could commit such an act. But should I allow that emotion to be the guiding force behind equality and law? Hell no. Because if you start opening the door to laws based on sentiment and emotion, sooner or later you're going to have a lawmaker whose heartstrings are tugged just the right way into making just about any law. When you start criminaling acts, their criminality should be based on facts, not feelings. "Did he kill this guy? Yes"--ok, fact. Did he kill him because he was gay? well i don't know, who cares, he was gay so its a hate crime--let 'em hang!"--emotion. revenge. criminal laws exist to punish criminal behavior, and possibly rehabilitate the criminal into a useful society member. They are not there to exact vengeance. If you believe in god, that's his job.
On the subject of suitcase nukes, the real threat comes not from those possibly built during the cold war, but from those built by terrorist organizations operating today with the support of rogue nations such as Iran. While bringing it in on a commercial aircraft would present a problematic situation for the would-be terrorist, there are many other avenues of entry into our country by someone enterprising enough.
As for the current Russian arsenal, it is still quite usable; unlike the US, who only maintains and when necessary, upgrades, its nuclear arsenal, the Russian military policy is to replace nuclear warheads as frequently as necessary to make sure that their state of readiness is intact. This is allowed by the SALT and START treaties as long as Russia keeps its total number of operational warheads below the maximums established by those treaties. Speaking of treaties, for the poster who seemed to think that Russia needed another treaty in order to inherit the START and SALT treaties, if I'm not mistaken, Russia inherited those treaties because the treaties were in essence made with each of the republics that made up the USSR (that would be the "Union" part of "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"). I'm not a political scientist, but i believe that's how it worked. the only reason we're worried about Russia and not any of the others is that Russia is the only one who still maintains its nuclear arsenal. I guess the rest of the warheads have all been sold to Iran by now...
I hope that IDG realizes that the money they paid a lawyer to write that letter far outweighs the cost of a thread on a LUG mailing list that everyone has long-since forgotten. the administrator of the group is completely not responsible for the subject lines... take that one to court and you'll get laughed right out. There is ample precedent in the US case law regarding the absolution of ISP's for hosted content. Its a small jump to apply the precedent to administrators of other communications media. Secondly, GET A LIFE!!!!!!!! haven't you people at idg got anything better to do?
on the bright side of things, at least we know now that the "dummies" books really are written for dummies, by dummies.
If you had read the article carefully enough, you would know that he wasn't arrested for _chatting_ with a minor--engaging in cybersex isn't a crime even with a minor. According to the affadavit filed by the FBI however, he set up a meeting for the purpose of having sex, then went to Los Angeles (which is a hell of a drive from Seattle, I might add) at the designated spot the online character set up. Coupled with the fact that in at least one conversation he gave a phone number to the agent, whom he thought was a 13-year-old, which connected to McNaughton's office, this is ample evidence that McNaughton had stepped far beyond the boundary of online role-playing. Additionally, he was also charged with child pornography offenses after a consentual search of his laptop computer turned up kiddie porn. For those of you who think that this falls under entrapment, think again. For this to even approach the legal definition of entrapment, the FBI agents would have had to made the suggestion to have sex and that McNaughton come to them or arrange for some other way of meeting. And while this is something I saw on the ZDNet talkbacks, I just wanted to state for the record that impersonating a minor is not a crime.
you're confused, and you're wrong. how is cell phone time different to a game character? without a cell phone, you can't make use of the time; without a computer and a copy of the game, you can't make use of a UO account. that's why it's a service - it's an enabler for an existing product.
I think its fairly obvious what the distinction between purchasing airtime and character attributes and properties is. Airtime is a service, plain and simple. True, you can't use a cellphone without one, but that doesn't make it a virtual property any more than paying for cable makes your television programming a virtual property. Nor is UO service a virtual property... as you correctly noted, an UO account is merely a key to unlock your purchased software. What are virtual properties are the attributes and tools you use in the virtual world of UO. These are not items which are tangible, or have a physical presence in what we call reality, nor are they a service, such as the UO account or your cell phone airtime. They have a use, a purpose, a raison d'etre, so to speak, much as an ax has a use in cutting wood and a hammer in hitting nails. Its an error in logic to try to lump virtual real estate and tools and assets in with a service such as a gaming account, your ISP, or airtime.
"Don't criticize a man til you've walked a mile in his shoes... that way you're a mile away and you've got his shoes." Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts one of my favorites.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but IMHO:
While on the surface, these issues seem to be mirror-images of each other, there is a small but subtle difference that makes them unrelated. Napster's legal defense rests on the idea that they do not distribute mp3's--they only provide a channel of distribution. It is actually the users of Napster who distribute the (often copyrighted and pirated) music. Whereas, Offspring is distributing Napster merchandise, not simply providing a forum for this purpose. If Offspring were instead operating an auction site of some sort where users could go to sell Napster merchandise, then these would be parallel issues.
In my mind, Napster has no choice but to pursue the Offspring in the courts, if they wish to preserve the integrity of their argument. If they failed to do so by the reasoning of those in the Offspring camp, they would then be admitting to the charge that they (Napster) are distributors of illegal mp3's, and by extension, liable for damages.
I don't know if anyone else is concerned about this, since my comments are filtered at 4+, but what concerns me is not whether or not Mitnick profits from his computer related offenses, but whether his first amendment rights are being violated. It seems to me that there is no compelling reason to constrict his speech, when the Supreme Court has already handed down decisions that speech that may run counter to society's best interests is still protected. While convicted criminals do give up some rights, such as the right to vote or bear arms, I don't see any reason to strip them of the right to free speech. I don't really see any compelling reason to revoke their voting rights, either, but that's a different argument entirely. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this, or perhaps a more valid legal opinion?
A much more likely scenario is that your hardware is at fault here. I have trouble playing my cd-r's in older equipment sometimes, especially if the disk is relatively full.
The reason a stock goes down after an announcement like this is simple: dividends. While the media would have most people believing that the reason to buy a stock is because it will appreciate in value, this is misleading; the reason a stock appreciates in value is that its profit margin, which stockholders each get a proportional piece of, goes up. When you announce you're going to be spending a nice chunk of change on something, whether its a good idea or a bad one, it means that the profits will go down for a quarter or two, and there's no dividends to be had. Thus, financial managers (ie mutual fund managers etc) sell the stock off to buy something that will make some profit. Then they buy it back when its low.
If you have Corel stock, now is NOT the time to sell; hang on to it for a few years. If you have a few thousand laying around in a CD somewhere ready to mature, I would put it in something like this. In a few years, Corel at 10 is going to be a pleasant memory.
AS ALWAYS, these opinions are my own. I rarely successfully balance my checkbook, so take financial advice from me with a grain of salt.
I am apparently in the minority here, at least among the moderated-up posters... I love skins. I use them constantly. Why? BECAUSE IT KEEPS OTHER PEOPLE OUT OF MY SHIT!!!!!!
When my computer-illiterate roommates and girlfriend sit down to steal time on my box at home, I want them to be scared shitless of the interface. Sometimes I even go so far as to set up cryptic menu commands that do nothing more than call up harmless xmessages asking whether they really think doing X is a good idea.
As I'm sure many people in the slashdot community do, I spend the better part of my waking hours in front of a computer, either at work or at home. I customize it for MY usability--not everyone elses. When other people start using my windows box, my stuff invariably gets lost, broken or deleted. At home thankfully the situation isn't that bad--thank god for permissions. All the same, I don't particularly care for my better half to be able to sit down at my running Xsession and "accidentally" find my email exchanges with ex's, etc...
My point is, skins allow me to make the interface something I'm comfortable with, something that scores envy points with my roommates, and something that keeps people honest. but even more so, skins are about the freedom to customize. While most of america may be content to sit in uniform cubicles staring at cookie-cutter computers all day long--indeed, this is a concept by no means limited to computer usage--those of us who desire independence should not be forced into a mold cast by the likes of bill gates.
Hey, you're preachin' to the choir, here. But the fact of the matter is that according to both case law and legislation, helping someone find pirated, copyrighted works is against the law. Even if at the same time you're helping someone find legitimate mp3's.
Which may be exactly what the company or organization wants. From past discussions here, it seems that most people beleive that the company you work for has a right to know what is being done with the company's machines. A stealthy tool such as BO may fit the bill for such a company. Since monitoring your employees is not illegal, I think it should be considered to be a legitimate tool.
Monitoring your employees isn't against the law; monitoring employees of other companies is. My point is that the stealth mode of BO makes it too easy to insert this program into a computer from outside an organization without anyone's knowledge. Ever wonder what all those cutsy little programs people sent through email are all about? CDC's first version of BO was designed explicitly for this purpose. The second version may be legit, but you can't convince me the first wasn't anything but.
Regarding culpability, the question is not legality but the legitimate uses of a given product. Take, for instance, mp3 search engines... they don't do anything blatantly illegal; all they do is provide a listing of where on the net you might find a given mp3. Its the actions of those who put mp3s on the web and those who download them that are illegal. However, because there are no legitimate uses for such a search engine, or at least, the legitimate uses are by-and-large non-used (yes, i am aware that there are non-copyrighted mp3s out there) the search engine remains culpable in copyright infringement.
now move on to subjects such as the aforementioned tools such as nmap. These tools can easily be misused to aid someone in cracking a system; however, they also have a very important legitimate use in helping sysadmins secure their networks.
ethically, programmers are going to have to start taking a closer look at the tools they develop and whether the benefits of their legitimate uses outweigh the dangers of their misuse. BackOrifice's stealth mode, for example, is an example of one such tool. The benefits for a network administrator having such a close look at a users system are almost immeasurable; however, in stealth mode, the user has no knowledge he or she may be watched, which opens the door for crackers into an organization's system. The ethical question is not, should such a tool be developed (it should, IMHO) but should it be so easy to abuse? (it should not) The implication here is that in the not-so-distant future, programmers will be more limited in what we can program, not by lawyers, but by society's acceptance of what we do. While I don't think we'll ever be told what we can and can't write (nor should we be), our image as a community will be tarnished by our less scrupulous members, much the way the community of hackers has been by crackers and script kiddies, or the way lawyers have been given a bad rap by their (much more numerous) dickheads.
currently one needs no certification to work professionally as a programmer or other computer professional. in the near future, however, this may change, unless we start policing ourselves and holding ourselves to a standard of ethics which society finds acceptable.
Laws making some crimes "hate crimes" is the same as affording some minorities special rights under the law, which is as discriminatory as the Jim Crow laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Premeditated murder is no more or less reprehensible than 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, depending on your state. However, some states have chosen to recognize that at the time of the murder the defendant in question may have been in a frame of mind which allowed him to do something that would ordinarily have been out of the question, or that the killing was accidental, if negligent. Penalties in most cases can be as severe as 1st degree murder; however, in cases of mitigating circumstances the judge is afforded the right to adjust sentence accordingly. Premeditated murder, on the other hand, shows that not only was the defendant capable of committing such an act, he or she did willfully plan and execute said act. While the effects of the two crimes are no less tragic, the second (premeditated murder) is evidence of greater anti-social tendencies in the defendant. Manslaughter (murder II in some states) also serves a useful purpose in the plea-bargaining process.
Cop-killers are more likely to face the death penalty not because cop-killing is a special crime, but because most cop-killings occur during the commission of another violent crime, which in most states is grounds for capital murder charges.
Equity does exist in the system; otherwise, it wouldn't be a crime at all to kill gays or african-americans. What proponents of hate crime bills are trying to do is balance smaller numbers with more equality; i.e. because there are fewer gays than straights, we should make them more equal than straights--its worse to kill one because there's fewer of them. That's crap. Premeditated murder has no lofty status--its simply intentional murder, whereas some killings are not necessarily so, and punishments are given accordingly.
Sentiment and law do not mix. yes, these murders were heinous. yes, it makes me sick that I am a member of a species that is capable of such rage, such hate that one could commit such an act. But should I allow that emotion to be the guiding force behind equality and law? Hell no. Because if you start opening the door to laws based on sentiment and emotion, sooner or later you're going to have a lawmaker whose heartstrings are tugged just the right way into making just about any law. When you start criminaling acts, their criminality should be based on facts, not feelings. "Did he kill this guy? Yes"--ok, fact. Did he kill him because he was gay? well i don't know, who cares, he was gay so its a hate crime--let 'em hang!"--emotion. revenge. criminal laws exist to punish criminal behavior, and possibly rehabilitate the criminal into a useful society member. They are not there to exact vengeance. If you believe in god, that's his job.
On the subject of suitcase nukes, the real threat comes not from those possibly built during the cold war, but from those built by terrorist organizations operating today with the support of rogue nations such as Iran. While bringing it in on a commercial aircraft would present a problematic situation for the would-be terrorist, there are many other avenues of entry into our country by someone enterprising enough.
As for the current Russian arsenal, it is still quite usable; unlike the US, who only maintains and when necessary, upgrades, its nuclear arsenal, the Russian military policy is to replace nuclear warheads as frequently as necessary to make sure that their state of readiness is intact. This is allowed by the SALT and START treaties as long as Russia keeps its total number of operational warheads below the maximums established by those treaties. Speaking of treaties, for the poster who seemed to think that Russia needed another treaty in order to inherit the START and SALT treaties, if I'm not mistaken, Russia inherited those treaties because the treaties were in essence made with each of the republics that made up the USSR (that would be the "Union" part of "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"). I'm not a political scientist, but i believe that's how it worked. the only reason we're worried about Russia and not any of the others is that Russia is the only one who still maintains its nuclear arsenal. I guess the rest of the warheads have all been sold to Iran by now...
I hope that IDG realizes that the money they paid a lawyer to write that letter far outweighs the cost of a thread on a LUG mailing list that everyone has long-since forgotten. the administrator of the group is completely not responsible for the subject lines... take that one to court and you'll get laughed right out. There is ample precedent in the US case law regarding the absolution of ISP's for hosted content. Its a small jump to apply the precedent to administrators of other communications media. Secondly, GET A LIFE!!!!!!!! haven't you people at idg got anything better to do?
on the bright side of things, at least we know now that the "dummies" books really are written for dummies, by dummies.
If you had read the article carefully enough, you would know that he wasn't arrested for _chatting_ with a minor--engaging in cybersex isn't a crime even with a minor. According to the affadavit filed by the FBI however, he set up a meeting for the purpose of having sex, then went to Los Angeles (which is a hell of a drive from Seattle, I might add) at the designated spot the online character set up. Coupled with the fact that in at least one conversation he gave a phone number to the agent, whom he thought was a 13-year-old, which connected to McNaughton's office, this is ample evidence that McNaughton had stepped far beyond the boundary of online role-playing. Additionally, he was also charged with child pornography offenses after a consentual search of his laptop computer turned up kiddie porn. For those of you who think that this falls under entrapment, think again. For this to even approach the legal definition of entrapment, the FBI agents would have had to made the suggestion to have sex and that McNaughton come to them or arrange for some other way of meeting. And while this is something I saw on the ZDNet talkbacks, I just wanted to state for the record that impersonating a minor is not a crime.
I think its fairly obvious what the distinction between purchasing airtime and character attributes and properties is. Airtime is a service, plain and simple. True, you can't use a cellphone without one, but that doesn't make it a virtual property any more than paying for cable makes your television programming a virtual property. Nor is UO service a virtual property... as you correctly noted, an UO account is merely a key to unlock your purchased software. What are virtual properties are the attributes and tools you use in the virtual world of UO. These are not items which are tangible, or have a physical presence in what we call reality, nor are they a service, such as the UO account or your cell phone airtime. They have a use, a purpose, a raison d'etre, so to speak, much as an ax has a use in cutting wood and a hammer in hitting nails. Its an error in logic to try to lump virtual real estate and tools and assets in with a service such as a gaming account, your ISP, or airtime.
"Don't criticize a man til you've walked a mile in his shoes... that way you're a mile away and you've got his shoes." Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts one of my favorites.