IANAL, but I think that what BulkRegister is doing is not illegal. I haven't seen the particular e-mail, but it sounds more slimly than illegal. As long as they are telling you what they want in such a way that it is clearly optional, then I don't see the problem.
Of course, I'm not inclined to do business with a company that would attempt to abuse this situation in this way, but that is my perogative.
With all due respect, isn't that the same logic that is being applied to the drug war. If it is no longer available, then people will stop wanting it. However, I imagine that child pornography is a totally different animal. I assume that most child pornography is produced for personal consumption, and it only distributed as a passport to getting more of it. Perhaps, I'm dilluded, but I don't think anyone is in the business of child pornography strictly for profit.
I don't think anyone here is in favor of the molestation of children, but the fact is that child pornography existed before the internet, and sadly will continue to exist in Pennsylvania despite this law. I believe that the internet only increased the flow of child pornography and not the total volume. Banning the means of transfer won't address the real problem which is the pedophiles themselves.
The internet is amoral, and not amount of legislation is going to change that.
The name "Matrix: Reloaded" has a bit of mystery to it. It has a sort of "Empire Strikes Back" quality to it. "Attack of the Clones" on the other has no mystery at all. I going to go out on a limb here, but I think clones are going to attack. All I know about the Matrix, is that it isn't dead yet.
I seriously doubt any pornographic organization would open a site under.kids. Those who like porn won't look for it there except for possibly pedophiles, and most kids don't have credit cards (and also won't look there).
However, you bring up an intersting question. What is and is not appropriate for children? I can imagine a website that discusses the changes that occur during puberty. This would definately be relavent to kids, but some parents wouldn't want their children to see this. What about the "gay" Teletubbie or religion?
I think it would be fairly easy to make a.kid tld pornography free, because of lack of interest on the side of pornographers. However, making a kid-friendly zone is not bloody likely.
I think the problem is who pays for it. If every parent that want this software pays for it, then everything is groovy. The problem is when people that don't want it still have to pay for it. That was the problem with Microsoft's per-processor licensing that this bill also shares.
I understand that every tax dollar I pay doesn't go to programs that benefit me directly. (There are plenty of road in Ohio that I have never used.) However, this would be money collected for something I absolutely don't want, that subsidizes those with the demonstrated means to buy a computer.
Much like most things in this country, let those who want it pay for it.
Couldn't someone write a program that filters out whitehouse.com or some other site. Sure, it would be the worse piece of censorware in the world, but it would censor. I haven't looked at the text of the bill close enough to know if they use the word "effective." Of course, if they did, then they would effectively ban Personal Computers in Texas.
The article mentions that they aren't going after WindowsCE machines. I suspect that it is because they don't think they can handle Microsoft without a precedent under their belt. However, they will most likely lose this case, so why don't they waste Microsoft's money instead of Palm's.
You are absolutely right about letting the circumstances dicate the way in which the event is classified. However, in your case, I would say that harm was done from the moment the user threatened to hack into your machine.
If pinging is like someone looking at your house from sidewalk, I think that someone that threatened to break in should be given less benefit of the doubt than a total stranger.
IANAB (I am not a banker), but my understanding of FDIC insurance is that an individual is protected from losses if the bank goes under up to something like $100,000. However, I don't believe that FDIC insurance applies to fraud in anyway whatsoever. If you pay a repairman by check for shoddy repairs, your bank will generally not get involved. Credit card companies tend to get involved, but of course they are not FDIC insured, since it doesn't apply to them.
I'm not saying this isn't legit, but the apparent misrepresenation of FDIC insurnace casts considerable doubt on their legitimacy.
I whole-heartedly agree with your position, and if I had the power to relinquish copyrights on games in that situation, I would. However, in most cases the people who can make that decision are the shareholders' of a company. I'm sure the shareholders are good people, but as group they find the idea of giving anything away as heresy.
In most cases, I imagine that the President and/or CEO of the company will most likely serve the shareholder's best interest by looking the other way. The shareholders would rather get money, but the cost of the lawsuit far exceeds the expected revenue. However, by not giving up the copyrights, the company can always take court action later, if the situation changes. I don't believe that copyrights have to be defended like trademarks.
Ultimately, I think it is one of those things that is only enforced if somebody really cares. I suspect if you sent a check to a company for the current value of a Apple II game, it wouldn't be worth the company's time to cash it.
This method encrypts any form of communication in such a way that it becomes illegal to decrypt it. The encryption scheme works by transforming english words using the following method.
1) Words beginning with a vowel are prepended to the word "pay".
2) Words beginning with a consonant are seperated into two words. The first of which being the original word without the leading consonant, and the second word consisting of the consonant prepended to the word "ay"
For a small license fee, you can have effective content control using my method. In the case of streams of digits, the method uses XOR64, but don't tell anyone, becase it's a secret.
That's very similiar to my unbreakeable encryption scheme. It can take any message, and encrypt it into the leter Q. If you sign a NDA, I can tell you about the details of the algorithm. However, I will vigorously defend my intellectual property rights.
There's just one problem. What if you select an item by clicking and then drag that icon unto the checkout? I believe that would be buying something with only one click, which is unfortunately already patented.
Keep in mind, all of the above is bullshit, since Judge Jackson referenced the "illegal tying of IE into Windows" in his findings-of-fact, a decision that had already been overturned in the appellate court. I'm betting the appellate's going to take one look at that, and smack Judge Jackson's bitch-ass down.
Actually, the appellate court ruled against the preliminary injunction, which was based on the evidence presented at that time. However, more evidence has been produced, and I think that the appellate court's actions in this matter are not predetermined.
But this isn't the way to go about it. In THIS case, I don't think MS has done anything wrong. The entire point of a business is to attempt to destroy all competition, because you want to maximize your profits. Microsoft is just VERY successful at it. They also neglected to realize that the rules change when you become a Monopoly. Slap them around a bit for that, give them a warning, and then kill them with extreme prejudice if they step out of line again.
My understanding is that they have already been warned. I am refering to a consent decree that was in place before this trial. The DOJ accused them of violating that decree, and here we are trying to promote justice and free markets. However, if Microsoft were actually killed with extreme prejudice, I wouldn't shed a tear.
Assuming that you are serious, I don't quite see the problem. Perhaps, they will be out of business in two years, and the Slashdot community will be partially responsible (in regards to advertising the existence of the cuecat and its hacks). However, I don't see how hackers should behave any differently. Why should they work with Digital Convergence?
I don't see the moral obligation to work with them instead of against them. Of course they are going to be reactionary, because they screwed up. I feel it is sort of like getting to work and realizing that you left the iron on or something. They made a stupid assumption and may pay the price for being wrong. Being wrong is a possiblity that every business has to accept.
IANAL, but I don't belive that their business model has any legal protections. I think the biggest protection for their business is that most people think that it is a stupid idea. I doubt anyone is going to set-up a rival server unless it is just a personal project. However, if someone wanted to set-up a business that used their hardware, I don't see how they can do anything about it. Did Kellogg's have to negotiate with the toaster industry to develop Pop-tarts?
I belive that Slashdot community keeps bringing up Digital Convergence, because this company has the audacity to give something away, then dictate to you how you can use it. I have no intention of sticking the thing up my butt (or anyone else's), but I have that right. I could gut the thing and modify it into a really crappy kazoo if I wanted to.
In addition, DC has seen fit to send a team of lawyers to protect their rights without specifically stating what those rights are. I think that even companies with bad business models should be able to defend their rights, but should still have to explain themselves. Digital convergence is trying to use their right to free speech, to stiffle the speech of others.
I am sorry if my feelings on the matter drive you nuts, but I feel that the first punch was thrown when DC tried to defend the rights they don't have, not when hackers treated a free gift like it was free.
I have no idea about the legalities of chaning the EULA for a product already in one's possesion. Obviously, they are trying to add the hardware to the EULA, which only included the software before, but how on earth can this be enforced.
Most licenses expire. At least most non software licenses expire like driver's licenses, and alcohol licenses. Each time you renew, you could be subject to new rules, but all parties are more or less aware of that in advance. I don't see how they can expect to change the terms of a license that most people just clicked through, and expect it to mean something.
IANAL, but even in the great state of Texas, I think that their business, if it depends on this change in EULA, is pretty much over.
I think that you might be confusing the DMCA with the UTICA. They are both quite onerous, but are in fact seperate pieces of legislation. I believe that the UTICA has to do with shrink-wrap licenses, and doesn't really address encryption like the DMCA.
With all due respect, that is a huge assumption. It can only harm the artists to the degree that potential sales are lost.
If I were to download a Metallica song right now, they would not be hurt, because I have no intention of buying a Metallica CD in this life or any subsequent one that I can forsee.
I suppose that I am hurting any artist whose music that I don't buy. I better get to the store quick.
While I don't like the RIAA's business decisions, it's the same as if Microsoft were forced to defend their copyright. Of course we would want them to win; our beloved GPL defense rests upon the same things that Microsoft's EULA rests upon. While we may not like Microsoft as a business, I'd find it hard to condemn Microsoft for defending its copyright. Same with the RIAA
Actually, that isn't entirely true, because in the abscence of copyright protections, then anything once published would effectively be in the public domain. Such an environment would make the GPL somewhat unnecessary. The only provision that would be lost would be the requirment that all changes to GPL code be published. However, if the code is not published it would be very hard to show that it used GPLed code. (Of course, I am not an expert on this sort of thing.)
Although copyright laws may be important and in the public good, I don't beleive the relationship between the GPL and Microsoft's EULA is at all similar.
The interesting thing is not that they plan to take away a person's rights to a domain name, but that they chose to auction the name rather than just revoke it. This basically allows them to collect more than $35/year for a domain name. Furthermore, they already know a market exists for the nam, because at least one person wanted.
Basically, it transforms the importance of being first to the importance of having money (and the will to use it.) This is what I don't appreciate.
I am not one of the forces that suggested/demanded a story about the stock market, but I feel that if Commander Taco feels so strongly about it, then this discussion that I am taking part in should not occur.
I totally agree that discussions about the stock market in general do not belong on Slashdot. There are hundreds of websites that are dedicated to that. Actually, I think the IPO coverage that Slashdot has right now is extraneous.
On that note (and perhaps offtopic), I wonder if there is a formal system to moderate the topics themselves. Readers/moderators can currently state there opinions about postings (MODERATE THIS UP!), but I'm not aware of a system to moderate the topics other than posting, "THIS TOPIC SUCKS... FIRST POST"
I don't think any good can come of an e-mail "flood", but I think it is always appropriate for a consumer to give suggestions. I believe that if someone makes a script that sends Blizzard e-mail every few seconds, that would be counterproductive. However, if every person that is interested sends one e-mail expressing their feelings on the subject, I don't see how that can be bad.
Naturally, Blizzard could ignore one million posts as easily as they could ignore one. However, if the e-mails seem to be sincere requests, it shouldn't hurt regardless of the quantity.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but I think that what BulkRegister is doing is not illegal. I haven't seen the particular e-mail, but it sounds more slimly than illegal. As long as they are telling you what they want in such a way that it is clearly optional, then I don't see the problem.
Of course, I'm not inclined to do business with a company that would attempt to abuse this situation in this way, but that is my perogative.
With all due respect, isn't that the same logic that is being applied to the drug war. If it is no longer available, then people will stop wanting it. However, I imagine that child pornography is a totally different animal. I assume that most child pornography is produced for personal consumption, and it only distributed as a passport to getting more of it. Perhaps, I'm dilluded, but I don't think anyone is in the business of child pornography strictly for profit.
I don't think anyone here is in favor of the molestation of children, but the fact is that child pornography existed before the internet, and sadly will continue to exist in Pennsylvania despite this law. I believe that the internet only increased the flow of child pornography and not the total volume. Banning the means of transfer won't address the real problem which is the pedophiles themselves.
The internet is amoral, and not amount of legislation is going to change that.
I guess its time to start buying lots of canned food, and building bomb shelters.
I would have sooner expected them to admit that Bill Gates is a mortal.
Probably not, I disagree with you.
The name "Matrix: Reloaded" has a bit of mystery to it. It has a sort of "Empire Strikes Back" quality to it. "Attack of the Clones" on the other has no mystery at all. I going to go out on a limb here, but I think clones are going to attack. All I know about the Matrix, is that it isn't dead yet.
I think that by random, they mean that the Nth digit has no correlation with any other digit in the sequence.
Regardless of the existence of a pi formula, pi is not random any more than the constant e. Afterall, pi always starts with 3.
I seriously doubt any pornographic organization would open a site under .kids. Those who like porn won't look for it there except for possibly pedophiles, and most kids don't have credit cards (and also won't look there).
.kid tld pornography free, because of lack of interest on the side of pornographers. However, making a kid-friendly zone is not bloody likely.
However, you bring up an intersting question. What is and is not appropriate for children? I can imagine a website that discusses the changes that occur during puberty. This would definately be relavent to kids, but some parents wouldn't want their children to see this. What about the "gay" Teletubbie or religion?
I think it would be fairly easy to make a
Unfortunately, the rules require that everyone respond simultaneously.
I think the problem is who pays for it. If every parent that want this software pays for it, then everything is groovy. The problem is when people that don't want it still have to pay for it. That was the problem with Microsoft's per-processor licensing that this bill also shares.
I understand that every tax dollar I pay doesn't go to programs that benefit me directly. (There are plenty of road in Ohio that I have never used.) However, this would be money collected for something I absolutely don't want, that subsidizes those with the demonstrated means to buy a computer.
Much like most things in this country, let those who want it pay for it.
Couldn't someone write a program that filters out whitehouse.com or some other site. Sure, it would be the worse piece of censorware in the world, but it would censor. I haven't looked at the text of the bill close enough to know if they use the word "effective." Of course, if they did, then they would effectively ban Personal Computers in Texas.
The article mentions that they aren't going after WindowsCE machines. I suspect that it is because they don't think they can handle Microsoft without a precedent under their belt. However, they will most likely lose this case, so why don't they waste Microsoft's money instead of Palm's.
You are absolutely right about letting the circumstances dicate the way in which the event is classified. However, in your case, I would say that harm was done from the moment the user threatened to hack into your machine.
If pinging is like someone looking at your house from sidewalk, I think that someone that threatened to break in should be given less benefit of the doubt than a total stranger.
IANAB (I am not a banker), but my understanding of FDIC insurance is that an individual is protected from losses if the bank goes under up to something like $100,000. However, I don't believe that FDIC insurance applies to fraud in anyway whatsoever. If you pay a repairman by check for shoddy repairs, your bank will generally not get involved. Credit card companies tend to get involved, but of course they are not FDIC insured, since it doesn't apply to them.
I'm not saying this isn't legit, but the apparent misrepresenation of FDIC insurnace casts considerable doubt on their legitimacy.
I whole-heartedly agree with your position, and if I had the power to relinquish copyrights on games in that situation, I would. However, in most cases the people who can make that decision are the shareholders' of a company. I'm sure the shareholders are good people, but as group they find the idea of giving anything away as heresy.
In most cases, I imagine that the President and/or CEO of the company will most likely serve the shareholder's best interest by looking the other way. The shareholders would rather get money, but the cost of the lawsuit far exceeds the expected revenue. However, by not giving up the copyrights, the company can always take court action later, if the situation changes. I don't believe that copyrights have to be defended like trademarks.
Ultimately, I think it is one of those things that is only enforced if somebody really cares. I suspect if you sent a check to a company for the current value of a Apple II game, it wouldn't be worth the company's time to cash it.
This method encrypts any form of communication in such a way that it becomes illegal to decrypt it. The encryption scheme works by transforming english words using the following method.
1) Words beginning with a vowel are prepended to the word "pay".
2) Words beginning with a consonant are seperated into two words. The first of which being the original word without the leading consonant, and the second word consisting of the consonant prepended to the word "ay"
For a small license fee, you can have effective content control using my method. In the case of streams of digits, the method uses XOR64, but don't tell anyone, becase it's a secret.
Hey!!
That's very similiar to my unbreakeable encryption scheme. It can take any message, and encrypt it into the leter Q. If you sign a NDA, I can tell you about the details of the algorithm. However, I will vigorously defend my intellectual property rights.
There's just one problem. What if you select an item by clicking and then drag that icon unto the checkout? I believe that would be buying something with only one click, which is unfortunately already patented.
Assuming that you are serious, I don't quite see the problem. Perhaps, they will be out of business in two years, and the Slashdot community will be partially responsible (in regards to advertising the existence of the cuecat and its hacks). However, I don't see how hackers should behave any differently. Why should they work with Digital Convergence?
I don't see the moral obligation to work with them instead of against them. Of course they are going to be reactionary, because they screwed up. I feel it is sort of like getting to work and realizing that you left the iron on or something. They made a stupid assumption and may pay the price for being wrong. Being wrong is a possiblity that every business has to accept.
IANAL, but I don't belive that their business model has any legal protections. I think the biggest protection for their business is that most people think that it is a stupid idea. I doubt anyone is going to set-up a rival server unless it is just a personal project. However, if someone wanted to set-up a business that used their hardware, I don't see how they can do anything about it. Did Kellogg's have to negotiate with the toaster industry to develop Pop-tarts?
I belive that Slashdot community keeps bringing up Digital Convergence, because this company has the audacity to give something away, then dictate to you how you can use it. I have no intention of sticking the thing up my butt (or anyone else's), but I have that right. I could gut the thing and modify it into a really crappy kazoo if I wanted to.
In addition, DC has seen fit to send a team of lawyers to protect their rights without specifically stating what those rights are. I think that even companies with bad business models should be able to defend their rights, but should still have to explain themselves. Digital convergence is trying to use their right to free speech, to stiffle the speech of others.
I am sorry if my feelings on the matter drive you nuts, but I feel that the first punch was thrown when DC tried to defend the rights they don't have, not when hackers treated a free gift like it was free.
I have no idea about the legalities of chaning the EULA for a product already in one's possesion. Obviously, they are trying to add the hardware to the EULA, which only included the software before, but how on earth can this be enforced.
Most licenses expire. At least most non software licenses expire like driver's licenses, and alcohol licenses. Each time you renew, you could be subject to new rules, but all parties are more or less aware of that in advance. I don't see how they can expect to change the terms of a license that most people just clicked through, and expect it to mean something.
IANAL, but even in the great state of Texas, I think that their business, if it depends on this change in EULA, is pretty much over.
I think that you might be confusing the DMCA with the UTICA. They are both quite onerous, but are in fact seperate pieces of legislation. I believe that the UTICA has to do with shrink-wrap licenses, and doesn't really address encryption like the DMCA.
If I were to download a Metallica song right now, they would not be hurt, because I have no intention of buying a Metallica CD in this life or any subsequent one that I can forsee.
I suppose that I am hurting any artist whose music that I don't buy. I better get to the store quick.
Actually, that isn't entirely true, because in the abscence of copyright protections, then anything once published would effectively be in the public domain. Such an environment would make the GPL somewhat unnecessary. The only provision that would be lost would be the requirment that all changes to GPL code be published. However, if the code is not published it would be very hard to show that it used GPLed code. (Of course, I am not an expert on this sort of thing.)
Although copyright laws may be important and in the public good, I don't beleive the relationship between the GPL and Microsoft's EULA is at all similar.
The interesting thing is not that they plan to take away a person's rights to a domain name, but that they chose to auction the name rather than just revoke it. This basically allows them to collect more than $35/year for a domain name. Furthermore, they already know a market exists for the nam, because at least one person wanted.
Basically, it transforms the importance of being first to the importance of having money (and the will to use it.) This is what I don't appreciate.
I am not one of the forces that suggested/demanded a story about the stock market, but I feel that if Commander Taco feels so strongly about it, then this discussion that I am taking part in should not occur.
I totally agree that discussions about the stock market in general do not belong on Slashdot. There are hundreds of websites that are dedicated to that. Actually, I think the IPO coverage that Slashdot has right now is extraneous.
On that note (and perhaps offtopic), I wonder if there is a formal system to moderate the topics themselves. Readers/moderators can currently state there opinions about postings (MODERATE THIS UP!), but I'm not aware of a system to moderate the topics other than posting, "THIS TOPIC SUCKS... FIRST POST"
Just something to Consider...
----
Do you believe?
I don't think any good can come of an e-mail "flood", but I think it is always appropriate for a consumer to give suggestions. I believe that if someone makes a script that sends Blizzard e-mail every few seconds, that would be counterproductive. However, if every person that is interested sends one e-mail expressing their feelings on the subject, I don't see how that can be bad.
Naturally, Blizzard could ignore one million posts as easily as they could ignore one. However, if the e-mails seem to be sincere requests, it shouldn't hurt regardless of the quantity.
"Steve's promotion will allow me to dedicate myself full time to my passion -- building great software..."
If only Bill had realized the problem years ago, we might have great software today.