If the plugin crashes, does the computer work as it should?
For all intents and purposes, yes. The computer runs all of her existing software, and burns CD's just fine. The problem occurs when she tries to use the plugin that was required by the vendor, and has no other use for her.
So the floor must have been rotten or something to begin with, right?
No. The floor wasn't rotten to begin with - as I said, it works fine for her for all other purposes. The problem occurs when she tries to use BuyMusic's plugin (I know it's actually Roxio's plugin, but the fact that it's required by the buymusic site, and that it has no other purpose for her, means that they have some liability.)
Or let's say it is made of sand, so cleaning it doesn't work. It has always been of sand so it works as before, but you can't clean it. Yes, silly analogy, but it kind of works.
No, it doesn't. BuyMusic said "these are the requirements:", which she fulfilled. She has everything they say she must have, yet it still doesn't work.
If a mop vendor told her it would clean a sand floor, and it (obviously) won't then they are at fault.
They licensed the songs from record companies in good faith. If those record companies are violating the law, defrauding BuyMusic and/or the artists, then they're the ones to go after.
Yeah, just like "some guy on the street" told me that everything I have in my Kazaa shared folder is legal.. they should just leave me alone, and find this guy.. he was working out of a beat-up old Chevy, but he said he represented every artist for every label that was part of the RIAA.
I have permission. The RIAA should go after the guy in the Chevy, not me.
But in this case, the mop didn't really break did it?
Yes, it did.
This would perhaps be more like using a mop on a floor and managing to poke the mop through the floor because your floor is so bad.
No, actually. The floor (computer) in this case still works as it did before. It's exactly the same as it was before she bought the mop.
Isn't it technically functional?
Technically, it's partly functional, which is not good enough. The main reason she bought it was so that she could make a CD she could listen to in her car. That part of it is broken. Since it holds no value for her otherwise, it doesn't matter if part of it is OK, because the part she wants to actually use isn't.
No, Right. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled so. "Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another."
Are you a Supreme Court justice? Didn't think so.
like a national magazine or newspaper? Or TV or radio? Or the messages on the side of the Goodyear blimp or written in the sky? Or mass mailings or even door-to-door canvassing?
So you're saying that a spammer should have the right to go to a TV or radiostation and demand airtime for free? Or to go to skywriters, or newspapers, or letter carriers, and demand free services?
In normal advertising, the sender pays - with spam, the recipient pays.
Sure you can. You can delete it, or filter it
Yes, but at that point you've already paid for it. Give your head a shake.
do people you don't know, or people you haven't explicitly invited to do so, have a right to telephone you? Or to knock on your door and ask to speak to you? Or to send you letters?
A better question is this:
Do people who don't know you, or people you haven't exlicitly invited to do so, have a right to make collecttelephone calls to you at your expense, and not allow you to refuse them? Or to knock loudly and incessantly on your door at 4:00 AM to wake you up and ask to speak to you? Or to send you letter postage due, that you are unable to refuse?
Spam regulation has to balance these things.
No, it really doesn't. Spam is harrassment, and theft. It has NO redeeming social qualities at all. There is no need to "balance" anything, because it's all one-sided.
Truthful spam is ok
No, it most certainly is _NOT_. Take the corrected list above - would it be OK for them, as long as everything is truthful? Of course not.
Spam is theft. The first amendment is irrelevant in this case.
Well, if the spammers are costing more money than they are generating then they too are hurting the economy, and rules need to be made to regulate them.
The whole 'frea speach' issue is a red herring, used by spammers to make stupid people take pause before doing something.
The first amendment guarantees the right to say whatever you want, but it does not guarantee the right to use other people's resources to say it.
> Meditation is *very* useful for clearing the mind and relieving stress.
Substitute "Mediation" with "six pack" and you have what the rest of us do
really? beer clears your mind? Try drinking a six-pack, then doing anything that requires focus and concentration (like, oh - say driving), and let me know how it works out for you.
according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [...] responding to spam may actually result in even more unsolicited email as these responses confirm to spammers the accuracy of the targeted email address. In fact, the FTC recently conducted a study wherein the Commission and law enforcement partners tested whether "remove me" or "unsubscribe" options in spam were being honored. Their findings showed that 63 percent of the removal requests were not honored.
Please provide evidence that replying to spam actually puts you on a high value list.
RTFA. Anecdotal, but still evidence.
Please provide evidence that replying to spam WON'T get you added to spam lists.
Try it - create a new email address (say a bunch of random characters, @ your ISP's domain), then submit it to a 'remove me' list, and watch how much spam it gets. It really does work.
OK, explain to me how the latter would be a bad thing? When was the last time your doctor told you "well, we can either kill you, or cure you - it's your choice", and anyone chose the former?
InterTrust's suit is essentially identical to SCO's
No, it really isn't. SCO's legal motions haven't mentioned anything about patents, and (as others more in-the-know than I have pointed out) SCO has no applicable patents to use.
Since SCO refuses to disclose which parts of the kernel contain "their" code (even when asked by Linus), and that they continue to make Linux freely available via their FTP site, the actual damages are zero.
Because people consider Linux to be too obscure to be worth spending their time attacking, it rarely succumbs to such attacks.
This is just plain false. If it were true, then there would be MUCH more attacks against Apache than IIS - but the reverse is true.
Also, even if this assertion were true, can you provide references for it (as I asked in my previous post)? Let's see some posts from Linux users who think that they're immune from hack attempts because they run Linux and not windows.
And before you start yammering about Many eyes/shallow bugs or whatever, I shall use my new favorite example: the sobig worm.
First, a worm is not a hack attempt - it's malware (along with viruses.)
Second, malware such as this has little to do with obscurity - it has to do with a mindset that ignores basic security practices (namely segregation of resources.)
I tried your link, but couldn't find the search box.
There is a link on his site that says "search text of all publications and books".. so I tried it, and entered "apex DVD player".. but it came up with 0 documents. If google is ripping off this guy, how come google comes up with over 5800 results, and this guy's search engine doesn't have any?
SCO can very well enforce their copyright by granting a license.
I disagree.
To do that, they'd have to disclose which parts they are "theirs".
Think about it - they're saying "you can't copy product X, because parts of it are ours", but they won't tell you which parts.
So you just keep using it, until they send you a C&D letter - which (to be enforceable under the law) would have to explicitly tell you what it is you're infringing. If they send you a C&D letter without being explicit, then attempt to sue you, then they excuse themselves from damages (at which point they _must_ tell you, or the case gets thrown out.)
SCO themselves did not insert the code. They simply redistributed a source package which already contained their code before it came into their possession. A judge is probably going to look at this claim and dismiss it outright.
I disagree. It's highly unlikely that a judge would dismiss this outright, unless some other defendant didn't show up.
This is true; in fact they are still distributing the code, although this may be accidental. I'm sure you can find the SRPM link somewhere around here. Let me explain why this doesn't matter:
I'm still waiting for your explanation of why it doesn't matter.
SCO is going to claim that they were not the ones to insert their proprietary code into Linux, IBM was. Therefore, it isn't their responsibility to take it out
This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who put it there, and it doesn't matter who's responisibility it is to remove it. What does matter is that while it's there, NOBODY CAN DISTRIBUTE IT, INCLUDING SCO. The only thing giving SCO the right to distribute the Linux kernel is the GPL, which SCO is implicitly agreeing to by continuting to distribute the code.
Simple three part question.
Is SCO aware of the requirements of the GPL?
Is SCO aware of "their" code in the kernel?
IS SCO DISTRIBUTING IT?
The answer to all three of these questions is YES
Therefore, it's highly likely that a judge would simply throw out SCO's assertions that the GPL doesn't apply. THE ONLY THING GIVING SCO THE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE THE KERNEL IS THE GPL. AS SCO IS CONTINUTING TO DISTRIBUTE "THEIR" CODE, THEY ARE AGREEING TO THE GPL.
it is also a violation for every single other Linux distro
What "other distributions" are doing is irrelevant - "other distributions" are not claiming that they have proprietary code, and "other distribitons" are not suing to stop one another from distributing the kernel.
SCO can easily claim that it is literally impossible to legally replace the code; the kernel is so tainted now that any replacement code would simply be another violation. The only solution is for these companies to pay SCO what they owe.
Bullshit. You're trying to tell me that something can not be replaced? AT ALL?!?!?! What have you been smoking?
And even if it's "impossible" to legally replace the code or not, the fact is that SCO hasn't told anybody where it is even when explicitly requested. By not doing so, SCO is saying that "their" code is worthless to them.
You have a very long troll - it's too bad you're not smart enough to actually make it convincing.
Has anyone comtemplated that SCO will have granted by the court in the SCO/IBM case a provision to seal this portion of the case on the basis of trade secrets?
No, because it's ludicrous.
The entire Linux kernel, including any alleged infringin code is publically available. It's therefore not a secret. (Hint - if everybody know something, then it's not a secret.)
the development community may never see the actual code, and only learn the result of the lawsuit, making it extremely difficult to "clean up" the current codebase of infringing material!
Any such ruling would get the (senile) judge that issued it thrown off the bench. Let's see: "You violated the law, and therefore must make amends, but we're not going to tell you what it is you did." Maybe you've heard of a small document called The Constitution that prohibits this?
if IBM ever decides to settle the case
IBM can't decide to settle. First, they've done nothing wrong (SCO's refusal to tell anyone where "their" code is is proof of this). And second, it would encourage every dying coroporation in the country to sue them.
SCO may demand to keep the code secret under an NDA.
And then what? SCO just lets the whole thing drop? Unlikely.. eventually they're going to run up against someone who A) will stand and fight, or B) will remove the code from the kernel, which everybody then uses.
I seem to remember reading that in any kind of civil action like this, the plaintiff has a duty to actively mitigate his damages to the maximum extent possible
In legalese, this is known as the "doctrine of laches" - and you're 100% correct (I've brought this point up a couple of times in the past.)
Basically, this is proof that SCO's charges are 100% groundless.. as they refuse to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are delaring that the value of the code is $0. So the absolute best case scenario for them (assuming they win 100% on all counts) is that Linus is told what lines need to be removed, and is given a year to remove/rewrite them.
There is no motivation for them to keep the alleged code "secret", because it means even if they win, then they lose.
Slashdot Mirror
If the plugin crashes, does the computer work as it should?
For all intents and purposes, yes. The computer runs all of her existing software, and burns CD's just fine. The problem occurs when she tries to use the plugin that was required by the vendor, and has no other use for her.
So the floor must have been rotten or something to begin with, right?
No. The floor wasn't rotten to begin with - as I said, it works fine for her for all other purposes. The problem occurs when she tries to use BuyMusic's plugin (I know it's actually Roxio's plugin, but the fact that it's required by the buymusic site, and that it has no other purpose for her, means that they have some liability.)
Or let's say it is made of sand, so cleaning it doesn't work. It has always been of sand so it works as before, but you can't clean it. Yes, silly analogy, but it kind of works.
No, it doesn't. BuyMusic said "these are the requirements:", which she fulfilled. She has everything they say she must have, yet it still doesn't work.
If a mop vendor told her it would clean a sand floor, and it (obviously) won't then they are at fault.
They have to actually have reason to believe that they're doing the right thing, otherwise they're criminally liable.
Umm, NO. (See reply #9.)
According to the DOJ, the ONLY thing the "under penalty of perjury" applies to is the fact that the RIAA is acting as an agent of the label.
They licensed the songs from record companies in good faith. If those record companies are violating the law, defrauding BuyMusic and/or the artists, then they're the ones to go after.
Yeah, just like "some guy on the street" told me that everything I have in my Kazaa shared folder is legal.. they should just leave me alone, and find this guy.. he was working out of a beat-up old Chevy, but he said he represented every artist for every label that was part of the RIAA.
I have permission. The RIAA should go after the guy in the Chevy, not me.
But in this case, the mop didn't really break did it?
Yes, it did.
This would perhaps be more like using a mop on a floor and managing to poke the mop through the floor because your floor is so bad.
No, actually. The floor (computer) in this case still works as it did before. It's exactly the same as it was before she bought the mop.
Isn't it technically functional?
Technically, it's partly functional, which is not good enough. The main reason she bought it was so that she could make a CD she could listen to in her car. That part of it is broken. Since it holds no value for her otherwise, it doesn't matter if part of it is OK, because the part she wants to actually use isn't.
The current interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't give citizens the right to marry someone of their own gender
But it also doesn't deny the right of citizens to marry someone of their own gender.
And (according to the law) if something isn't expressly forbidden, then it's allowed.
Baning gay marriage is roughly equivalent to banning civilian ownership of tanks
Because gay marriages have the same destrutive capability as howitzer wrapped 10 tons of armor-plated steel?
Jebus, that's gotta be the most stupid comparisons I've ever heard.
Microsoft's punishment was that they weren't allowed to break the law anymore.
No, actually, MS's punishment was that they weren't allowed to break the law for 5 years.
And if they did break the law within those 5 years, then they wouldn't be allowed to break the law for 7 years.
First Amendment rights do not apply to spam.
Wrong.
No, Right. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled so. "Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another."
Are you a Supreme Court justice? Didn't think so.
like a national magazine or newspaper? Or TV or radio? Or the messages on the side of the Goodyear blimp or written in the sky? Or mass mailings or even door-to-door canvassing?
So you're saying that a spammer should have the right to go to a TV or radiostation and demand airtime for free? Or to go to skywriters, or newspapers, or letter carriers, and demand free services?
In normal advertising, the sender pays - with spam, the recipient pays.
Sure you can. You can delete it, or filter it
Yes, but at that point you've already paid for it. Give your head a shake.
do people you don't know, or people you haven't explicitly invited to do so, have a right to telephone you? Or to knock on your door and ask to speak to you? Or to send you letters?
A better question is this:
Do people who don't know you, or people you haven't exlicitly invited to do so, have a right to make collecttelephone calls to you at your expense, and not allow you to refuse them? Or to knock loudly and incessantly on your door at 4:00 AM to wake you up and ask to speak to you? Or to send you letter postage due, that you are unable to refuse?
Spam regulation has to balance these things.
No, it really doesn't. Spam is harrassment, and theft. It has NO redeeming social qualities at all. There is no need to "balance" anything, because it's all one-sided.
Truthful spam is ok
No, it most certainly is _NOT_. Take the corrected list above - would it be OK for them, as long as everything is truthful? Of course not.
Spam is theft. The first amendment is irrelevant in this case.
Well, if the spammers are costing more money than they are generating then they too are hurting the economy, and rules need to be made to regulate them.
The whole 'frea speach' issue is a red herring, used by spammers to make stupid people take pause before doing something.
The first amendment guarantees the right to say whatever you want, but it does not guarantee the right to use other people's resources to say it.
There is NO first amendment issue regarding spam.
> Meditation is *very* useful for clearing the mind and relieving stress.
Substitute "Mediation" with "six pack" and you have what the rest of us do
really? beer clears your mind? Try drinking a six-pack, then doing anything that requires focus and concentration (like, oh - say driving), and let me know how it works out for you.
How about this?
Please provide evidence that replying to spam actually puts you on a high value list.
RTFA. Anecdotal, but still evidence.
Please provide evidence that replying to spam WON'T get you added to spam lists.
Try it - create a new email address (say a bunch of random characters, @ your ISP's domain), then submit it to a 'remove me' list, and watch how much spam it gets. It really does work.
You're pretty funny...
First you say it doesn't work, then you leave this gem:
The only thing it's useful for is getting you off to sleep at night.
OK, so if it doesn't do anything, how can it be effective in relaxing you?
You know, that's the point of meditation - to help you to relax.
killing the patient OR killing the disease
OK, explain to me how the latter would be a bad thing? When was the last time your doctor told you "well, we can either kill you, or cure you - it's your choice", and anyone chose the former?
InterTrust's suit is essentially identical to SCO's
No, it really isn't. SCO's legal motions haven't mentioned anything about patents, and (as others more in-the-know than I have pointed out) SCO has no applicable patents to use.
In order to see the disputed code, SCO makes one sign a NDA. Fine. What's to prevent him from passing the data to someone else who then posts it?
Umm, the NDA?
If you think it can't hurt you, why don't you sign it?
And if you still think it's a good idea, read this.
What are SCO's actual damages
Since SCO refuses to disclose which parts of the kernel contain "their" code (even when asked by Linus), and that they continue to make Linux freely available via their FTP site, the actual damages are zero.
Because people consider Linux to be too obscure to be worth spending their time attacking, it rarely succumbs to such attacks.
This is just plain false. If it were true, then there would be MUCH more attacks against Apache than IIS - but the reverse is true.
Also, even if this assertion were true, can you provide references for it (as I asked in my previous post)? Let's see some posts from Linux users who think that they're immune from hack attempts because they run Linux and not windows.
And before you start yammering about Many eyes/shallow bugs or whatever, I shall use my new favorite example: the sobig worm.
First, a worm is not a hack attempt - it's malware (along with viruses.)
Second, malware such as this has little to do with obscurity - it has to do with a mindset that ignores basic security practices (namely segregation of resources.)
Security through Obscurity is the reason that many people think that Linux distros are inherently more secure than MS
References please?
I've heard MS (and others) say that they're more secure than OSS, because they're closed, but never the reverse.
Perhaps you have your parties confused?
That's one one thing dead people are useful for.
:o)
That, and for fixing elections in Florida
The "b" is for bargain!
:o)
I thought it was for BYOBB..
(OBSimpson's reference
They actually ripped off Dr. Garfield
I tried your link, but couldn't find the search box.
There is a link on his site that says "search text of all publications and books".. so I tried it, and entered "apex DVD player".. but it came up with 0 documents. If google is ripping off this guy, how come google comes up with over 5800 results, and this guy's search engine doesn't have any?
SCO can very well enforce their copyright by granting a license.
I disagree.
To do that, they'd have to disclose which parts they are "theirs".
Think about it - they're saying "you can't copy product X, because parts of it are ours", but they won't tell you which parts.
So you just keep using it, until they send you a C&D letter - which (to be enforceable under the law) would have to explicitly tell you what it is you're infringing. If they send you a C&D letter without being explicit, then attempt to sue you, then they excuse themselves from damages (at which point they _must_ tell you, or the case gets thrown out.)
SCO themselves did not insert the code. They simply redistributed a source package which already contained their code before it came into their possession. A judge is probably going to look at this claim and dismiss it outright.
I disagree. It's highly unlikely that a judge would dismiss this outright, unless some other defendant didn't show up.
This is true; in fact they are still distributing the code, although this may be accidental. I'm sure you can find the SRPM link somewhere around here. Let me explain why this doesn't matter:
I'm still waiting for your explanation of why it doesn't matter.
SCO is going to claim that they were not the ones to insert their proprietary code into Linux, IBM was. Therefore, it isn't their responsibility to take it out
This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who put it there, and it doesn't matter who's responisibility it is to remove it. What does matter is that while it's there, NOBODY CAN DISTRIBUTE IT, INCLUDING SCO. The only thing giving SCO the right to distribute the Linux kernel is the GPL, which SCO is implicitly agreeing to by continuting to distribute the code.
Simple three part question.
Is SCO aware of the requirements of the GPL?
Is SCO aware of "their" code in the kernel?
IS SCO DISTRIBUTING IT?
The answer to all three of these questions is YES
Therefore, it's highly likely that a judge would simply throw out SCO's assertions that the GPL doesn't apply. THE ONLY THING GIVING SCO THE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE THE KERNEL IS THE GPL. AS SCO IS CONTINUTING TO DISTRIBUTE "THEIR" CODE, THEY ARE AGREEING TO THE GPL.
it is also a violation for every single other Linux distro
What "other distributions" are doing is irrelevant - "other distributions" are not claiming that they have proprietary code, and "other distribitons" are not suing to stop one another from distributing the kernel.
SCO can easily claim that it is literally impossible to legally replace the code; the kernel is so tainted now that any replacement code would simply be another violation. The only solution is for these companies to pay SCO what they owe.
Bullshit. You're trying to tell me that something can not be replaced? AT ALL ?!?!?! What have you been smoking?
And even if it's "impossible" to legally replace the code or not, the fact is that SCO hasn't told anybody where it is even when explicitly requested. By not doing so, SCO is saying that "their" code is worthless to them.
You have a very long troll - it's too bad you're not smart enough to actually make it convincing.
Has anyone comtemplated that SCO will have granted by the court in the SCO/IBM case a provision to seal this portion of the case on the basis of trade secrets?
No, because it's ludicrous.
The entire Linux kernel, including any alleged infringin code is publically available. It's therefore not a secret. (Hint - if everybody know something, then it's not a secret.)
the development community may never see the actual code, and only learn the result of the lawsuit, making it extremely difficult to "clean up" the current codebase of infringing material!
Any such ruling would get the (senile) judge that issued it thrown off the bench. Let's see: "You violated the law, and therefore must make amends, but we're not going to tell you what it is you did." Maybe you've heard of a small document called The Constitution that prohibits this?
if IBM ever decides to settle the case
IBM can't decide to settle. First, they've done nothing wrong (SCO's refusal to tell anyone where "their" code is is proof of this). And second, it would encourage every dying coroporation in the country to sue them.
SCO may demand to keep the code secret under an NDA.
And then what? SCO just lets the whole thing drop? Unlikely.. eventually they're going to run up against someone who A) will stand and fight, or B) will remove the code from the kernel, which everybody then uses.
I seem to remember reading that in any kind of civil action like this, the plaintiff has a duty to actively mitigate his damages to the maximum extent possible
In legalese, this is known as the "doctrine of laches" - and you're 100% correct (I've brought this point up a couple of times in the past.)
Basically, this is proof that SCO's charges are 100% groundless.. as they refuse to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are delaring that the value of the code is $0. So the absolute best case scenario for them (assuming they win 100% on all counts) is that Linus is told what lines need to be removed, and is given a year to remove/rewrite them.
There is no motivation for them to keep the alleged code "secret", because it means even if they win, then they lose.