First off IANAL, and I suspect YANAL either.. so let's ask someone who IS a lawyer -
Hmm, according to Lawrence Lessig, who is not only a lawyer, but a copyright lawyer, copyright "protects copyright owners from unfair competition. It has never been a way to give copyright holders perfect control"
So I'd guess you're wrong when you say that copyright is about control. Unfair competition is about profits.
apparently the issue of contributory copyright infringement would have gone to trial but for the fact that AOL met one of the "safe-harbor" provisions of the DMCA.
This is (probably) true. Ellison misunderstands technology so much that he could have had it go to court. And he would have lost.
Usenet is apparently saved by the DMCA.
Umm, this is a VERY big leap.
The DMCA's "safe harbour" provisions in no way "saved" Usenet. All they did was provide a short-cut.
If the safe harbour provisions didn't exist, Ellison would have taken AOL to court, and would have lost - because in order to be found guilty of contributory copyright infringement, you must have knowledge that infringement is taking place.. this implies that AOL must know the copyright status of every piece of information on Usenet.
So (continuing the assumption that safe harbour didn't exist) when Ellison lost, it would have created a legal precident.. and effectively done the same thing.
The DMCA did not "save" Usenet, because even if the DMCA didn't exist, the end result would have been the same. It would just have taken longer.
Make legislation that says the justice department should get off it's butt and prosecute copyright infringement cases.
Two things:
First off, talking about music (which the rest of this post concerns, although it could apply to movies in the not-so-distant future), the justice department is not allowed to prosecute most of the cases we're talking about here - the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992 prohibited that; in exchange, the RIAA gets a cut of recording equipment/blank media sales.
Second, this isn't really about copyright infringement, it's about control.
In the past, music recording was a very expensive procedure, but like all technology, it has dropped in price, to the point that it's now possible to put together a decent-quality studio for a few thousand dollars.
Also in the past, it was very difficult to expose a band to a large audience - but the Internet has made it so that a band can reach millions of people for $20 a month.
In the past, bands needed record companies - they needed them to make their recordings, and they needed them to sell and market their recordings.. so the record companies had draconian contracts that forced some bands into bankruptcy, when the companies made millions.
This is no longer the case - a band can make and record their own CD's, and distribute them directly to fans, and this scares the record companies shitless.
The record companies aren't scared about copyright infringement, they're scared that they're no longer needed. In order to get back to "the good ole days" they need legislation like the CBDTPA.
With the CBDTPA, independant artists become a thing of the past again - if music doesn't have the watermarks or whatever, then the CBDTPA-compliant devices will interpret it as "illegal" (someone must have removed it) - independant artists won't be able to add the controls themselves, nor will they be able to afford to license it, so they have to go back to the record companies slavery.
In Britain, shortly after the automobile was invented, a law was passed that stated that any automobile could not be driven over 4Mph, and must be led by a man carrying a red flag. The law was requested by the horse carriage industry.
The effects of the law were quite profound - nobody wanted to buy a car if they couldn't drive it faster than they could walk, so while Henry Ford created the assembly-line, and created one of the strongest automotive industries in the world, Britain's car industry lagged sorely behind the rest of the world. The "red flag" law (as it came to be known) was repealed 10 years later, but the damage it did to Britain's automotive industry has never been undone (disclaimer: I am British.)
Senator Hollings is doing the exact same thing to American computer industry with this bill - to satisfy a vocal minority, he is sacrificing an emerging industry, and it will set back the American economy.
To me, your rant sounds very much like you have an axe to grind.. although you make some good points, it sounds like you have a personal vendetta against SonicBlue..
TiVo is a good company that customers can believe in... they don't screw over their customers
That is pretty much a matter of opinion.. let me use the words of a Tivo spokesperson (Richard Bullwinkle) to refute it:
(he's talking about hackers extracting the video from the Tivo)
we have to write code that makes it as difficult as we can. We are very aware that there is no hacker-proof system, but we try to make it very difficult... Conceivably TiVo will provide technology that will allow users to share video within their home, but not allow it to be sent outside the home... we must protect the content providers
Doesn't sound very much to me like a company that's concerned about their customers at all.. I can almost hear him saying "I mean, the nerve of people, trying to share something they've recorded off TV - What's next? lending video tapes to friends?"
What it comes down to (at least for me) is this: Replay has better technology, and doesn't cowtow to "content providers" at the expense of their customers. To me, that makes them a better company than Tivo
If a server sends more than a certain number of emails to yahoo addresses within a certain period of time (I don't know what the specific values are), yahoo will automatically stop accepting mail from that server.
OK, but this isn't the problem the poster is talking about.. if yahoo's mail server stops accepting mail from a specific server, then the sender will get bounce messages.
So another example would be needed, as Yahoo isn't one of them.
Many large ISPs are implementing anti-spam filters based on how many emails they receive from a single sender
Can you qualify this please? How many is "Many"? Two? Four? A hundred?
Worse still is that there is typically no error message returned to us - the emails simply get dropped
If this is true, then their mail servers are misconfigured, or your return address is wrong.
Are you sure you're not screwing up? Can you post your mail server logs showing that delivery has taken place?
If you're not getting bounces, then the ISP's are really accepting your email - which pretty much defeats the anti-spam logic (the whole point of anti-spam is to prevent mail transfer - which according to you, they're not doing.)
I'd guess that it's a problem with your equipment, or your mailing list software. Either your return address is wrong, or your mail server is dropping the mail instead of delivering it.
Sometimes, ISPs will add us to their "white" lists
OK, so you've contacted multiple ISPs, who all have their mail servers misconfigured in the same way, and you're convinced there are still more out there..
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit.
Whoa, hold on, slow down..
I think we found the stupidest person on the face of the planet.
If they didn't create the software, how can it be theirs? In one sentence, he says that the code is theirs, but that they didn't create it.. I'm sorry, but WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
This is probably a troll, but I'll respond anyway.
It doesn't matter if they're legal; an audit is expensive.
MS will come in, and for two weeks, there will be NO computers to use. Classes are disrupted, administrators must show the licenses for every piece of software for every computer. Even if they are 100% in compliance, it will still cost them TONS of cash.
So they can either cough up the $1/2Mil for something they already bought, or they can experience two weeks of pain, which will probably cost them the same amount. Even if they're innocent.
Some *nix advocates like to claim that Windows administrators don't know what they're doing. But it's often clear that those advocates are just as clueless where Windows systems are concerned.
The difference is that the *nix admins aren't being paid to know how to admin Windows.
There's nothing wrong with not knowing something - it's when you're supposed to know it (either because it's your job, or because you tell someone you know) that's bad.
It's pretty funny that the "Win2K is as good as Unix because you don't need to reboot it to change settings" mantra that I hear from MCSE's doesn't apply to this:o)
it defaults to 'nobody' but if the web server is running as root, you can specify any username in this box.
Actually, you don't need to run as root, you just have to start as root (which you have to do anyway to bind to ports <1024).
It is dificult to get PHP running on Roxen, but for everything else it works great.
For PHP, I recommend Caudium.. actually, I'd recommend Caudium over Roxen anyway:o) http://www.caudium.net Caudium is a fork of the Roxen 1.3 codebase.. basically the Caudium maintainers didn't like the direction that Roxen 2.x was heading (backwards-compatability with 1.3 was horribly lacking.) In addition to PHP support, they made great strides in performance.
Is it not possible... to allow someone to your bank account Depositor access only?
That doesn't work - the scammers say that they need withdrawal access, so they can withdraw their portion of the money..
If you only gave them access to deposit, they'd claim that they didn't trust you, and that they won't put their (bogus) $$$ in until you give them full access..
Slashdot Mirror
I'll probably be modded down as a troll
Only because it's true.
The one crippling characteristic of OSS is that there are few (if any) standards.
OK, so what (exactly) do you call HTTP, DNS, SMTP, DHCP, RPC, FTP, etc, etc?
Standards are what define Open Source.
It's the closed-source world that is lacking in standards.. with VERY few exceptions, there are no standards to be had.
COPYRIGHT LAW IS ABOUT CONTROL
First off IANAL, and I suspect YANAL either.. so let's ask someone who IS a lawyer -
Hmm, according to Lawrence Lessig, who is not only a lawyer, but a copyright lawyer, copyright "protects copyright owners from unfair competition. It has never been a way to give copyright holders perfect control"
So I'd guess you're wrong when you say that copyright is about control. Unfair competition is about profits.
apparently the issue of contributory copyright infringement would have gone to trial but for the fact that AOL met one of the "safe-harbor" provisions of the DMCA.
This is (probably) true. Ellison misunderstands technology so much that he could have had it go to court. And he would have lost.
Usenet is apparently saved by the DMCA.
Umm, this is a VERY big leap.
The DMCA's "safe harbour" provisions in no way "saved" Usenet. All they did was provide a short-cut.
If the safe harbour provisions didn't exist, Ellison would have taken AOL to court, and would have lost - because in order to be found guilty of contributory copyright infringement, you must have knowledge that infringement is taking place.. this implies that AOL must know the copyright status of every piece of information on Usenet.
So (continuing the assumption that safe harbour didn't exist) when Ellison lost, it would have created a legal precident.. and effectively done the same thing.
The DMCA did not "save" Usenet, because even if the DMCA didn't exist, the end result would have been the same. It would just have taken longer.
most spammers would use a third party relay, including an ISP provided one. Since this protects their identity and their machine.
I'm sorry, but where did you learn about SMTP?
Most (90%) of the mail servers on the planet will stamp the sender's IP address in the headers - how does this protect the spammer's identity?
"incentivates"?
There's nothing wrong with it - it's a perfectly cromulent word.
When an American governmental organization buys a software license, it's almost always money going to a tax-paying U.S. corporation
Yeah, unless that company is Microsoft, because MS doesn't pay taxes.
Make legislation that says the justice department should get off it's butt and prosecute copyright infringement cases.
Two things:
First off, talking about music (which the rest of this post concerns, although it could apply to movies in the not-so-distant future), the justice department is not allowed to prosecute most of the cases we're talking about here - the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992 prohibited that; in exchange, the RIAA gets a cut of recording equipment/blank media sales.
Second, this isn't really about copyright infringement, it's about control.
In the past, music recording was a very expensive procedure, but like all technology, it has dropped in price, to the point that it's now possible to put together a decent-quality studio for a few thousand dollars.
Also in the past, it was very difficult to expose a band to a large audience - but the Internet has made it so that a band can reach millions of people for $20 a month.
In the past, bands needed record companies - they needed them to make their recordings, and they needed them to sell and market their recordings.. so the record companies had draconian contracts that forced some bands into bankruptcy, when the companies made millions.
This is no longer the case - a band can make and record their own CD's, and distribute them directly to fans, and this scares the record companies shitless.
The record companies aren't scared about copyright infringement, they're scared that they're no longer needed. In order to get back to "the good ole days" they need legislation like the CBDTPA.
With the CBDTPA, independant artists become a thing of the past again - if music doesn't have the watermarks or whatever, then the CBDTPA-compliant devices will interpret it as "illegal" (someone must have removed it) - independant artists won't be able to add the controls themselves, nor will they be able to afford to license it, so they have to go back to the record companies slavery.
In Britain, shortly after the automobile was invented, a law was passed that stated that any automobile could not be driven over 4Mph, and must be led by a man carrying a red flag. The law was requested by the horse carriage industry.
The effects of the law were quite profound - nobody wanted to buy a car if they couldn't drive it faster than they could walk, so while Henry Ford created the assembly-line, and created one of the strongest automotive industries in the world, Britain's car industry lagged sorely behind the rest of the world. The "red flag" law (as it came to be known) was repealed 10 years later, but the damage it did to Britain's automotive industry has never been undone (disclaimer: I am British.)
Senator Hollings is doing the exact same thing to American computer industry with this bill - to satisfy a vocal minority, he is sacrificing an emerging industry, and it will set back the American economy.
it would seem that we would already be getting some idea as to the basic premise of the plot from the producers
Not only does it seem that way, but it really is that way. Hint: RTFA!
To me, your rant sounds very much like you have an axe to grind.. although you make some good points, it sounds like you have a personal vendetta against SonicBlue..
TiVo is a good company that customers can believe in
That is pretty much a matter of opinion.. let me use the words of a Tivo spokesperson (Richard Bullwinkle) to refute it:
(he's talking about hackers extracting the video from the Tivo)
Doesn't sound very much to me like a company that's concerned about their customers at all.. I can almost hear him saying "I mean, the nerve of people, trying to share something they've recorded off TV - What's next? lending video tapes to friends?"
What it comes down to (at least for me) is this: Replay has better technology, and doesn't cowtow to "content providers" at the expense of their customers. To me, that makes them a better company than Tivo
If a server sends more than a certain number of emails to yahoo addresses within a certain period of time (I don't know what the specific values are), yahoo will automatically stop accepting mail from that server.
OK, but this isn't the problem the poster is talking about.. if yahoo's mail server stops accepting mail from a specific server, then the sender will get bounce messages.
So another example would be needed, as Yahoo isn't one of them.
Many large ISPs are implementing anti-spam filters based on how many emails they receive from a single sender
Can you qualify this please? How many is "Many"? Two? Four? A hundred?
Worse still is that there is typically no error message returned to us - the emails simply get dropped
If this is true, then their mail servers are misconfigured, or your return address is wrong.
Are you sure you're not screwing up? Can you post your mail server logs showing that delivery has taken place?
If you're not getting bounces, then the ISP's are really accepting your email - which pretty much defeats the anti-spam logic (the whole point of anti-spam is to prevent mail transfer - which according to you, they're not doing.)
I'd guess that it's a problem with your equipment, or your mailing list software. Either your return address is wrong, or your mail server is dropping the mail instead of delivering it.
Sometimes, ISPs will add us to their "white" lists
OK, so you've contacted multiple ISPs, who all have their mail servers misconfigured in the same way, and you're convinced there are still more out there..
I think maybe the problem is at your end.
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit.
Whoa, hold on, slow down..
I think we found the stupidest person on the face of the planet.
If they didn't create the software, how can it be theirs? In one sentence, he says that the code is theirs, but that they didn't create it.. I'm sorry, but WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
This is probably a troll, but I'll respond anyway.
It doesn't matter if they're legal; an audit is expensive.
MS will come in, and for two weeks, there will be NO computers to use. Classes are disrupted, administrators must show the licenses for every piece of software for every computer. Even if they are 100% in compliance, it will still cost them TONS of cash.
So they can either cough up the $1/2Mil for something they already bought, or they can experience two weeks of pain, which will probably cost them the same amount. Even if they're innocent.
Some *nix advocates like to claim that Windows administrators don't know what they're doing. But it's often clear that those advocates are just as clueless where Windows systems are concerned.
The difference is that the *nix admins aren't being paid to know how to admin Windows.
There's nothing wrong with not knowing something - it's when you're supposed to know it (either because it's your job, or because you tell someone you know) that's bad.
No idea about the Mac, but instructions for Windows can be found at http://www.isc.org/ml-archives/bind-users/2000/11/ msg00109.html
:o)
It's pretty funny that the "Win2K is as good as Unix because you don't need to reboot it to change settings" mantra that I hear from MCSE's doesn't apply to this
I wonder how many BioWare employees from Whyte come on here
:o)
:o)
Dunno.. none of them are me
Although BioWare guys, if you're listening, My Birthday is coming up, and I'd love a copy of Neverwinter Nights
Count me in as #5. I werk in St Albert
:o)
Cool.. I'm in St. Albert all the time (we have an office right downtown..) where abouts do you work?
Y'know, this is getting seriously off-topic
Way to go Edmonton!!
Geez, that makes four of us now..
And we all seem to hang out around Whyte Ave..
(I live in Old Strathcona)
For the same reason, Red Hat doesn't get in trouble for bundling various applications with their Linux distribution since they are not a monopoly.
You're correct about leveraging a monopoly, but this isn't proof of it.
Even if Redhat was a monopoly, bundling other people's applications (which is what RHAT does) wouldn't necessarily be an antitrust violation.
MS is in hot water because they bundle their own products, in an attempt to kill these products' competition.
If MS had decided to bundle Netscape's browser with the OS (negotiating an appropriate license,) the browser-bundling wouldn't be an issue.
it defaults to 'nobody' but if the web server is running as root, you can specify any username in this box.
:o) http://www.caudium.net Caudium is a fork of the Roxen 1.3 codebase.. basically the Caudium maintainers didn't like the direction that Roxen 2.x was heading (backwards-compatability with 1.3 was horribly lacking.) In addition to PHP support, they made great strides in performance.
Actually, you don't need to run as root, you just have to start as root (which you have to do anyway to bind to ports <1024).
It is dificult to get PHP running on Roxen, but for everything else it works great.
For PHP, I recommend Caudium.. actually, I'd recommend Caudium over Roxen anyway
Is it not possible... to allow someone to your bank account Depositor access only?
That doesn't work - the scammers say that they need withdrawal access, so they can withdraw their portion of the money..
If you only gave them access to deposit, they'd claim that they didn't trust you, and that they won't put their (bogus) $$$ in until you give them full access..
Other companies do it!
Yeah, but other companies aren't monopolies
Once you're a monopoly, you have to play by different rules.
I have a few hundred Megabytes of harddisk free and have yet to find any small version of Linux that I can actually get to work!
I run Slack 7.1 on my P90/24MB laptop.
Slackware requires that you know a little about Linux config files, but it runs very smoothly.
Don't give spammers your e-mail address in the first place.
Hey, now why didn't I think of that?!?!
Thank you, your advise can be put to more use than just anti-spam:
To all those people who get hit by drunk drivers every year:
Don't get hit by drunk drivers!
To all those people who get hurt playing football:
Don't get hurt playing football!
To all those people who get lost in the wilderness:
Don't get lost!
Wow, that's sooo simple, where would the world be without insight like yours?