Probably they could insist that you change the name. Besides if for each real metallica song there are 100 non metallica songs then they've won. Nobody will attempt to get any kind of metallica material of Napster because you don't know what the hell you are getting.
No those forms of copying are just legal. And in fact the RIAA/MPAA don't mind at all. You see whenever you buy a cassette recorder or a VCR and each time you buy a blank tape or videotape you pay a special tax that get's sent to the RIAA/MPAA. The theory is that you will be recording their material so you should pay for this material. This happens regardless of why you bought those items. It's stupid, but that's how things have worked out.
The problem they have with making your own mp3s and such is that they don't get paid for each hard drive you purchase. Or for the encoder and such. But it is legal to record from radio, tv, etc.
Soon as you file, I'll be after that huge pile of cash you call your wallet.
What, you're going to grab his ass?
Sorry you couldn't possibly go after him in a situation like that. First they would show up at your house with a valid search warrant. Then they would tear up your place looking for evidence. Then they would decide if they wanted to sue you. Even if they wanted to sue you, since it's a new area of law that doesn't have precedent to show how it's to be interpreted there is no case for a wrongful suit lawsuit.
This isn't about catching the pirates. It's about killing off Napster. They are playing by Napster's rules and now Napster has to stick to their policies and block each and every one of those people on that list. If they can present 300,000 people a week via certified mail Napster will have to type in 300,000 people a week. If they can't handle the load then they lose and will have to shutdown or face a very big lawsuit.
A fan that isn't paying back in by buying their albums or going to their concerts is no more than a hairs breadth away from a non-fan. And most of the people who only know about Metallica via Napster (which is a bit of an impossibility since most people use the search capabilities rather than the browse capabilities) aren't buying their albums or going to their concerts.
I wonder if they are actually going after just the Metallica pirates or everybody who is pirating music. It wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA joined in this in the background and it would make a lot of sense. Sure it may cost some initial up front cost, but nothing like it will cost Napster. And if Napster doesn't take measures to stop each reported offender then they become directly liable and suddenly it costs a lot more. Can you say Bye-Bye Napster.
This is copyright not trademark. Copyright doesn't require any kind of effort and they can selectively chose who to go after. If the owner of a property thinks that violator A has nice tits so they won't sue them and violator B has an ugly face so they get sued, that's just fine.
No, all they need is an industry association (RIAA) to go out there and sue the crap out of a few individuals on a regular basis. With any service like gnutella you are putting your face right up there to be kicked in. How many people are going to continue distributing pirated material if they knew for a fact that on any given week there were half a dozen people whose lives were completely destroyed by a lawsuit?
Even if they were paying, I'm sure that napster has a TOS that indicates copyrighted music can't be distributed. You violate the TOS and they can kick you right off without a refund.
They don't need to verify that, they just need enough evidence to convince napster. This isn't a court of law, it's Metallica following the proper procedure with Napster to prevent piracy. Napster has said that if they are provided with a pirate's information they will punt that fellow of the network.
Besides if everybody started calling everything "metallica" they get the exact same effect as purging all metallica songs by burying the real goods among 10 times as many fake items. Nobody will be willing to download 60 megs of mp3 just looking for one 3 meg song.
There is not such thing as a "dynamic address". You have hosts that don't get the same address, but the address itself is just an address. And there isn't any way to identify without making informed guesses from the hostname associated with that address. If the CNAME for 1.2.3.4 is modem72-pool.foo.net you would be safe in assuming that it's probably not permanently associated with a machine.
Re:US Imprisonment Rate Not Almost As High As Russ
on
Thus Spake Stallman
·
· Score: 1
So what does this mean? Does it mean that Russia doesn't imprision as many of it's criminals? Does it mean that the US is a safer place to live? No offense but in a civilized country you don't just let people do anything they want, particularily when it comes to violating the protected rights of others. If some asshole decided he wanted my TV, broke into my house, pulls it off the shelf and finds himself crushed under the weight... well once people show up to help get it off his ass, I say lock the fucker up.
You left out the bits about "inventing rights" and the fact that they actively take stances to diminish some rights that are given by the constitution.
Um, I live in Utah and have zero kids. Now explain to me why I have to pay for your two stinking brats? Everybody has different opinions on what is the "right" number of children. You seem to think that two is OK and five isn't. Sorry, but two is just as bad to me as ten. It is not a human right to have society pay to support your breeding habits. If we are going to start regulating birth rates then I say we put it at zero and let the parents do their own paying.
BTW the people who settled Utah, drive the economy, and generally make it a nice place are the Mormons. If you want the world to be the way you want it to be, you do the work to create your utopia.
Now, explain how planting desert plants is doing a good job of using our resources. If you want to argue using resources responsibly then argue that public lands should be carrying food producing vegation or some other resource that can actually be used. You average sagebrush doesn't have quite the utility as an apple tree. Nor does it do as much to control erosion as grasses.
That there are people starving is a situation created by greed and not by lack of food, or means to distribute it.
No, it's the fault of shortsighted people. There's no natural law that forces people to breed uncontrollably. There's no natural law that says go ahead and plant the same crop year after year until you have completely destroyed the nutrient value of your arable land. There is no natural law that says go ahead and shit in your drinking water. Look at the world, there are many areas that are desert wastelands now because of poor land management. Look at the US. We produce 30% of the food year after year using substantially less than 30% of the land area of the planet. We have starvation because people don't think about the future, and it's not the people in developed countries that aren't doing the thinking.
No this doesn't make sense. There is no evidence that shows that the GPL is responsible for the adoption of Linux rather than, say, FreeBSD.
Here's a little adaption for you: "The reason MS Windows has done so well is because of the EULA. There are many other x86 OSes out there that are just as good or better than MS Windows, but they are not EULA'd." Does that make sense? No.
Re:nVidia has incentive to remain closed-source...
on
GPL Violation - NVIDIA
·
· Score: 1
No, nVidia can fix their violation by stopping distribution of their driver. That's all they need to do. What's more is that they could fix it without having to rewrite the code anyway. They could just write a script in their makefile that would extract the relevant bits out of the code that is already in the kernel. Or even better, modularize the code in question and contribute it back to Linus for inclusion in the kernel. That there isn't duplication of the module for each driver that needs the support.
Yeah, "full of stolen GPL code." First off you can't "steal" GPL code. Second it's not hidden away in their binary only driver, it's in the kernel module that they released the source code to. Anybody who wants the source can get it. The only thing is that it doesn't say "GPL" in the copyright.
No, I think as a matter of law nVidia is required to either stop distributing the driver in question or release the code. They can easily stop distributing, rewrite the code in half an hour and then rerelease it. The only recourse the copyright holder would have is to sue for damages and punative damages. What do you want to bet that the damages are $0 and punative damages would be $0.
That's not what happened here. What happened is that he was looking through the source code for the kernel module (which they released the source code for) and saw his code. The only violation is that it's not GPL-ed.
The fact that there are no publicly available legally licensed DVD players for linux doesn't mean that it's illegal to view DVDs under linux. It just means that you don't have access to a player. If you want to pay the fees and write the software it is perfectly legal to do it. Merely not being able legally doesn't mean that it's illegal. I personally can't buy 1,000 shares of Oracle stock, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal to do so.
Just because there are situations where you can't legally break an encryption scheme doesn't make breaking encryption schemes illegal. The illegal act is not the generalized breaking of encryption streams. It's much like you can't drive a car on public roads without a license, yet you can drive a car on private property without one.
The argument that the RIAA puts out that digitally playing music is illegal is not the law. It's what they want you to think is the law. At most it's currently ambigous. All previous case law that could relate to this says that it's legal to do so.
Again you say "Linking to a website is illegal." This is obviously untrue. There are certain things that may get you into trouble if you link to them, but by no means is the general statement you made correct.
Finally, the speed limit on many roads is 75 MPH or higher. In Montana (or maybe it's Wyoming) for instance, there is no speed limit during the day. Yes there are roads where it's illegal, such as residential areas. But merely driving over 70 MPH isn't breaking the law. Not to mention again the fact that if you are on private property you can drive as quickly as you desire.
You attempt to stir up outrage by using obviously wrong generalities is just dumb. You don't do anyone a service by muddying the waters.
There is so much wrong with what you write, I don't even know where to begin.
First you say that it's inherently right to reform a criminal if you can find a way to reform a criminal. That's circular and not a valid argument. Sure the principle that a good person contributing to society is better than not having that person is sound. But you are speaking about a hypotheical reform. Until you can give a proven, unfailing method of reform then there is no point in trying to reform an recidivist thug.
Second you say that you wouldn't mind a hypothetical murderer being hypothetically reformed and then returned to society. Well this isn't a hypothetical world. This is the real world, people commit crimes and don't reform. Society has an obligation to protect it's members. Without having some kind of deterrent (and given the number of repeat offenders we aren't deterring people now) society is failing it's members.
Third you imply that people somehow are automatically liable for what other people decide that are liable for. It's not an Joe Famous' concern if some wacko out there decides that they are going to kill themselves if Joe Famous doesn't play the role of the Big Wonker in some movie.
Finally you go into the wrongly accused argument. Yes people are wrongly accused and it's horrible. But nowhere did I say we should just kill everybody for every little thing. Obviously you have to take into account what the crime was. But you are under no obligation to nuture some asshole into being a good person. That's my point. In societies we join together for the benefits. Having some goat molester steal your money, ruin your business, or break down your personal sense of security isn't a benefit and there needs to be a way for that to be corrected. If this can't be done, then there is no reason to try and help the "poor" criminal. People are not animals, they make their decisions knowing that there are going to be an expending circle of effects. If you get a hammer and nail and nail yourself to a tree is it societies job to ensure that you don't suffer any scars or pain from that?
Slashdot Mirror
You reall y think napster is going to ban 335,000 ports?
Yes. If they don't they become liable.
Probably they could insist that you change the name. Besides if for each real metallica song there are 100 non metallica songs then they've won. Nobody will attempt to get any kind of metallica material of Napster because you don't know what the hell you are getting.
No those forms of copying are just legal. And in fact the RIAA/MPAA don't mind at all. You see whenever you buy a cassette recorder or a VCR and each time you buy a blank tape or videotape you pay a special tax that get's sent to the RIAA/MPAA. The theory is that you will be recording their material so you should pay for this material. This happens regardless of why you bought those items. It's stupid, but that's how things have worked out.
The problem they have with making your own mp3s and such is that they don't get paid for each hard drive you purchase. Or for the encoder and such. But it is legal to record from radio, tv, etc.
Soon as you file, I'll be after that huge pile of cash you call your wallet.
What, you're going to grab his ass?
Sorry you couldn't possibly go after him in a situation like that. First they would show up at your house with a valid search warrant. Then they would tear up your place looking for evidence. Then they would decide if they wanted to sue you. Even if they wanted to sue you, since it's a new area of law that doesn't have precedent to show how it's to be interpreted there is no case for a wrongful suit lawsuit.
This isn't about catching the pirates. It's about killing off Napster. They are playing by Napster's rules and now Napster has to stick to their policies and block each and every one of those people on that list. If they can present 300,000 people a week via certified mail Napster will have to type in 300,000 people a week. If they can't handle the load then they lose and will have to shutdown or face a very big lawsuit.
A fan that isn't paying back in by buying their albums or going to their concerts is no more than a hairs breadth away from a non-fan. And most of the people who only know about Metallica via Napster (which is a bit of an impossibility since most people use the search capabilities rather than the browse capabilities) aren't buying their albums or going to their concerts.
Napster isn't a human right. You aren't entitled to use Napster. If Napster wants to create a service that only redheads can use, they can.
I wonder if they are actually going after just the Metallica pirates or everybody who is pirating music. It wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA joined in this in the background and it would make a lot of sense. Sure it may cost some initial up front cost, but nothing like it will cost Napster. And if Napster doesn't take measures to stop each reported offender then they become directly liable and suddenly it costs a lot more. Can you say Bye-Bye Napster.
This is copyright not trademark. Copyright doesn't require any kind of effort and they can selectively chose who to go after. If the owner of a property thinks that violator A has nice tits so they won't sue them and violator B has an ugly face so they get sued, that's just fine.
No, all they need is an industry association (RIAA) to go out there and sue the crap out of a few individuals on a regular basis. With any service like gnutella you are putting your face right up there to be kicked in. How many people are going to continue distributing pirated material if they knew for a fact that on any given week there were half a dozen people whose lives were completely destroyed by a lawsuit?
Even if they were paying, I'm sure that napster has a TOS that indicates copyrighted music can't be distributed. You violate the TOS and they can kick you right off without a refund.
They don't need to verify that, they just need enough evidence to convince napster. This isn't a court of law, it's Metallica following the proper procedure with Napster to prevent piracy. Napster has said that if they are provided with a pirate's information they will punt that fellow of the network.
Besides if everybody started calling everything "metallica" they get the exact same effect as purging all metallica songs by burying the real goods among 10 times as many fake items. Nobody will be willing to download 60 megs of mp3 just looking for one 3 meg song.
There is not such thing as a "dynamic address". You have hosts that don't get the same address, but the address itself is just an address. And there isn't any way to identify without making informed guesses from the hostname associated with that address. If the CNAME for 1.2.3.4 is modem72-pool.foo.net you would be safe in assuming that it's probably not permanently associated with a machine.
Psychology is only one step above mud pie making.
So what does this mean? Does it mean that Russia doesn't imprision as many of it's criminals? Does it mean that the US is a safer place to live? No offense but in a civilized country you don't just let people do anything they want, particularily when it comes to violating the protected rights of others. If some asshole decided he wanted my TV, broke into my house, pulls it off the shelf and finds himself crushed under the weight... well once people show up to help get it off his ass, I say lock the fucker up.
You left out the bits about "inventing rights" and the fact that they actively take stances to diminish some rights that are given by the constitution.
Um, I live in Utah and have zero kids. Now explain to me why I have to pay for your two stinking brats? Everybody has different opinions on what is the "right" number of children. You seem to think that two is OK and five isn't. Sorry, but two is just as bad to me as ten. It is not a human right to have society pay to support your breeding habits. If we are going to start regulating birth rates then I say we put it at zero and let the parents do their own paying.
BTW the people who settled Utah, drive the economy, and generally make it a nice place are the Mormons. If you want the world to be the way you want it to be, you do the work to create your utopia.
Now, explain how planting desert plants is doing a good job of using our resources. If you want to argue using resources responsibly then argue that public lands should be carrying food producing vegation or some other resource that can actually be used. You average sagebrush doesn't have quite the utility as an apple tree. Nor does it do as much to control erosion as grasses.
No, it's the fault of shortsighted people. There's no natural law that forces people to breed uncontrollably. There's no natural law that says go ahead and plant the same crop year after year until you have completely destroyed the nutrient value of your arable land. There is no natural law that says go ahead and shit in your drinking water. Look at the world, there are many areas that are desert wastelands now because of poor land management. Look at the US. We produce 30% of the food year after year using substantially less than 30% of the land area of the planet. We have starvation because people don't think about the future, and it's not the people in developed countries that aren't doing the thinking.
No this doesn't make sense. There is no evidence that shows that the GPL is responsible for the adoption of Linux rather than, say, FreeBSD.
Here's a little adaption for you: "The reason MS Windows has done so well is because of the EULA. There are many other x86 OSes out there that are just as good or better than MS Windows, but they are not EULA'd." Does that make sense? No.
No, nVidia can fix their violation by stopping distribution of their driver. That's all they need to do. What's more is that they could fix it without having to rewrite the code anyway. They could just write a script in their makefile that would extract the relevant bits out of the code that is already in the kernel. Or even better, modularize the code in question and contribute it back to Linus for inclusion in the kernel. That there isn't duplication of the module for each driver that needs the support.
Yeah, "full of stolen GPL code." First off you can't "steal" GPL code. Second it's not hidden away in their binary only driver, it's in the kernel module that they released the source code to. Anybody who wants the source can get it. The only thing is that it doesn't say "GPL" in the copyright.
No, I think as a matter of law nVidia is required to either stop distributing the driver in question or release the code. They can easily stop distributing, rewrite the code in half an hour and then rerelease it. The only recourse the copyright holder would have is to sue for damages and punative damages. What do you want to bet that the damages are $0 and punative damages would be $0.
That's not what happened here. What happened is that he was looking through the source code for the kernel module (which they released the source code for) and saw his code. The only violation is that it's not GPL-ed.
The fact that there are no publicly available legally licensed DVD players for linux doesn't mean that it's illegal to view DVDs under linux. It just means that you don't have access to a player. If you want to pay the fees and write the software it is perfectly legal to do it. Merely not being able legally doesn't mean that it's illegal. I personally can't buy 1,000 shares of Oracle stock, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal to do so.
Just because there are situations where you can't legally break an encryption scheme doesn't make breaking encryption schemes illegal. The illegal act is not the generalized breaking of encryption streams. It's much like you can't drive a car on public roads without a license, yet you can drive a car on private property without one.
The argument that the RIAA puts out that digitally playing music is illegal is not the law. It's what they want you to think is the law. At most it's currently ambigous. All previous case law that could relate to this says that it's legal to do so.
Again you say "Linking to a website is illegal." This is obviously untrue. There are certain things that may get you into trouble if you link to them, but by no means is the general statement you made correct.
Finally, the speed limit on many roads is 75 MPH or higher. In Montana (or maybe it's Wyoming) for instance, there is no speed limit during the day. Yes there are roads where it's illegal, such as residential areas. But merely driving over 70 MPH isn't breaking the law. Not to mention again the fact that if you are on private property you can drive as quickly as you desire.
You attempt to stir up outrage by using obviously wrong generalities is just dumb. You don't do anyone a service by muddying the waters.
There is so much wrong with what you write, I don't even know where to begin.
First you say that it's inherently right to reform a criminal if you can find a way to reform a criminal. That's circular and not a valid argument. Sure the principle that a good person contributing to society is better than not having that person is sound. But you are speaking about a hypotheical reform. Until you can give a proven, unfailing method of reform then there is no point in trying to reform an recidivist thug.
Second you say that you wouldn't mind a hypothetical murderer being hypothetically reformed and then returned to society. Well this isn't a hypothetical world. This is the real world, people commit crimes and don't reform. Society has an obligation to protect it's members. Without having some kind of deterrent (and given the number of repeat offenders we aren't deterring people now) society is failing it's members.
Third you imply that people somehow are automatically liable for what other people decide that are liable for. It's not an Joe Famous' concern if some wacko out there decides that they are going to kill themselves if Joe Famous doesn't play the role of the Big Wonker in some movie.
Finally you go into the wrongly accused argument. Yes people are wrongly accused and it's horrible. But nowhere did I say we should just kill everybody for every little thing. Obviously you have to take into account what the crime was. But you are under no obligation to nuture some asshole into being a good person. That's my point. In societies we join together for the benefits. Having some goat molester steal your money, ruin your business, or break down your personal sense of security isn't a benefit and there needs to be a way for that to be corrected. If this can't be done, then there is no reason to try and help the "poor" criminal. People are not animals, they make their decisions knowing that there are going to be an expending circle of effects. If you get a hammer and nail and nail yourself to a tree is it societies job to ensure that you don't suffer any scars or pain from that?