Peter sees a lady at the back of the bar and says, "Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter, girls as sharp as her are somethin' rare."
Mrs. Brown says, "Hi Peter, I don't recognise your friend, is he somebody I should know?"
The two friends walk back and sit down with Mr. and Mrs. Brown.
Mr. Brown starts quizzing Peter concerning how the met their daughter. Peter tells some tale about a bus stop and and umbrella. Mr. Brown asks about his intentions and he says, "Somethin' tells me I'm into something good."
Joe sees another lady walk into the bar and says, "Mrs. Walker, can I come by tomorrow morning and take Rose Marie to the beach?"
"One very real problem with any punishment scheme (such as suspending operations): A standard method for dealing with such things is for the company to sell off its assets to a newly-formed corporation, and then dissolve."
Obviously then, when designing "jail time" for corporations, such options would have to be forbidden.
"There's really no way to handle this except by punishing the responsible managers. Corporations exist to insulate management from legal action, after all."
Are you confusing owners, directors, officers, and managers? I know corporations protect shareholders (owners) what about the others?
In my estimation, "jail time" should also take away the profits earned by the company and shareholders for the duration of the sentence. Why could such a setup not be devised?
'If you consider the object of jail time "to prevent a criminal from committing more crime", certainly suspending a corporation's operations stops that corporation from committing more crime.'
The original thought when posting the journal article mentioned, was to find some way to even out the penalties faced by corporations and by humans for commiting the same crimes.
"If you consider the object of jail time "to reform a criminal" then you can just forget about applying this logic to corporations; their obligation is to make the greatest profit possible."
Why do we always use this idea as a cop out? Perhaps we need to change this obligation in law?
"Toward that end, the label group agreed to companywide reforms to detect and prevent future abuses and is making a $10 million donation to local charities to fund programs aimed at music education and appreciation."
"This guy is following the license and spirit of the GPL, and making money doing it. People should be patting him on the back, not giving him a hard time."
If you read the posts, you will see that some people do not think he is following the spirit of Free Software. Making money from it is not the problem for them though.
Isn't this software based on java? Care to comment on his devotion to the spirit of Free Software?
"Now, the trick they use is to purposely not document their work, it is free indeed, but just try to use it. Oh, you want support? Write a check to....."
"One thing with people who only do it for the money is that I tend not to trust them not to make things unnecessarily complex in order to earn the service/consulting money."
My point exactly. I think the tactic is so unnecessay and counterproductive. There are always going to be real problems and opportunities and people will always pay to make their lives better. We don't need to create fake problems to get them to pay us to fix.
When I find people who do this, I try to stay well clear of them.
I may be a GNU freak, but I oscillate between clean shaven and stubble. Haven't worn anything close to a beard in years.
As to being a dirty hippie, I missed that movement by about ten years. My hair got longer than I wear it today, but it never really made it down to my shoulders. Dirty? Well, no shower yet this morning so I am not totally fresh, but I wouldn't go so far as dirty.
Clearly, in peering at me through the internet, your fibre got crossed and you saw someone else.
If he really has this attitude, he is sadly mistaken and most likely being a jerk.
A lot of my motivation for contributing is a way saying thanks.
How does he pay for all of his foundations? Or is he just a taker?
Since his stuff is Free (if it is) you can look at it as who cares?
One thing with people who only do it for the money is that I tend not to trust them not to make things unnecessarily complex in order to earn the service/consulting money.
"It's there because he bought a piece of equipment that effectively installed its own "Open House" sign."
A point I made earlier (in me reading.) So bring the device maker up on charges for wrongfully installing the open house sign, not the person so saw the sign and walked in to the open house innocently.
"It's even more than that. The wireless router received a standard, "can I have legitimate credentials on this network?" request in the form of a DHCP lease request."
Yes, and the real culprit here is the device manufacturers who ship these devices with default open policies to make it easier to just plug and go without knowing anything and without having to configure them on initial setup.
"Microsoft's dominance on the desktop is helping the company extend its reach into the fast growing VoIP business, thus putting it in direct competition with the likes of Cisco."
So, what Cisco needs to do is put sneaky code into its routers that identifies traffic between two MS products and "messes" with it. ~;-)
Ok, thanks again for your patience and your kind answers.
I am not from the US, but these things interest me. I think our copyright laws have been changed within the last 10 or 15 years. I saw something in the paper the other day and asked around and have been told that here, simple possession of a cd or dvd that was burned (duplicated) in violation of copyrights can result in a 5 year prision term (it may have been 4 years, I can't remember now.
That seemed odd to me so I clarified and said suppose someone went into a normal everyday store and bought a cd or dvd that looked legit. They take it home. Later, for some reason, it is found to not be a legit copy. Is this person liable to jail? The answer I got was yes. (There is also a hugh fine that goes along with the possible jail time. Perhaps fine is not the right term, I don't know who would get the money.)
"Liable, not guilty. Civil suits deal with liability; criminal suits deal with guilt. And there are higher standards for criminal infringement; they're not strict liability."
Sorry, OK liable. Not being a lawyer, I sometimes miss being precise in my words.
Which does bring up another question (sorry for having so many, I just hope the thread will serve to educate others as well.) Isn't there a criminal side to this whole copyright infringement business these days? If so, when does the criminal come into play?
"Anyway, yes, it doesn't matter what they intended. If they undertake an infringing action, they're liable."
OK then. That hurts. But after learning that the statutory damages are variable, the situation is not as bad as I had envisioned. Is it the judge who decides on the amounts in all instances? Is there ever a jury involved?
"For infringement, the statutory damages are within the range of $750 - $30,000 per work, as the court finds to be appropriate."
Wasn't there a $200 figure mentioned earlier, when would that come in?
"If the plaintiff can show that the infringement was willful (this does get into the infringer's mental state),"
Does it matter if the act was willful or if the intent to infringe was willful? As in:
I willfully made a copy knowing it was a copyright violation to do so, versus I willfully made a copy, but I thought it was not a copytight violation to do so, versus, I did not willfully make the copy, but I made it anyway.
"Statements along those lines may or may not work. Given the overall course of action you'd be undertaking, I'd be surprised if a court didn't find that you had implicitly authorized the people you mailed to view the works, with all that entailed."
Since in the situation I outlined, I would not have any rights to even make copies for myself much less authorize someone else to do so, I don't see how this can be so.
"So it's likely you'd end up losing money. It's further likely that you'd end up getting sued yourself for trying to run the scam, and that angry judges would hold you in contempt if you tried it a second time.
I really would not try it, if I were you."
Oh, I have no intention of trying something so crooked, or something so stupid.
I got into this whole line as a result of a statement that the intent of the person making the unauthorized copy did not enter into the matter. I tried to set up a situation where a person clearly had no intention to violate anyone's copyright end yet did make a copy of someone's copyrighted work without their permission to do so. The particulars were just some invented way to have this happen.
I still don't see you saying that, indeed it doesn't matter what they intended, they made a copy, they had no permission from the copyright holder to do so and thus they are guilty. (And under the statutory damages deal, they could face hugh fines.) Are they guilty? Would they face such fines if the work was registered?
You have taught me something I was previously ignorant of though (I think) as I did not know that the statutory damages deal had minimum and maximum fines. If I read you right, would you care to enlighten us further?
Slashdot Mirror
Peter sees a lady at the back of the bar and says, "Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter, girls as sharp as her are somethin' rare."
Mrs. Brown says, "Hi Peter, I don't recognise your friend, is he somebody I should know?"
The two friends walk back and sit down with Mr. and Mrs. Brown.
Mr. Brown starts quizzing Peter concerning how the met their daughter. Peter tells some tale about a bus stop and and umbrella. Mr. Brown asks about his intentions and he says, "Somethin' tells me I'm into something good."
Joe sees another lady walk into the bar and says, "Mrs. Walker, can I come by tomorrow morning and take Rose Marie to the beach?"
[rimshot]
all the best,
drew
"If this Noone person held a gun to his head then the contract is not legally binding."
This Noone guy's first name could not possibly be Peter, could it?
all the best,
drew
"One very real problem with any punishment scheme (such as suspending operations): A standard method for dealing with such things is for the company to sell off its assets to a newly-formed corporation, and then dissolve."
Obviously then, when designing "jail time" for corporations, such options would have to be forbidden.
"There's really no way to handle this except by punishing the responsible managers. Corporations exist to insulate management from legal action, after all."
Are you confusing owners, directors, officers, and managers? I know corporations protect shareholders (owners) what about the others?
In my estimation, "jail time" should also take away the profits earned by the company and shareholders for the duration of the sentence. Why could such a setup not be devised?
all the best,
drew
'If you consider the object of jail time "to prevent a criminal from committing more crime", certainly suspending a corporation's operations stops that corporation from committing more crime.'
The original thought when posting the journal article mentioned, was to find some way to even out the penalties faced by corporations and by humans for commiting the same crimes.
"If you consider the object of jail time "to reform a criminal" then you can just forget about applying this logic to corporations; their obligation is to make the greatest profit possible."
Why do we always use this idea as a cop out? Perhaps we need to change this obligation in law?
all the best,
drew
" Sure, there may be ways to do this, but it's tricky. (That's not to say impossible.) "
OK, so it is tricky but not impossible. If we think it is a good idea, let's hash it about some and see what we come up with.
Did you read my original journal post here?
http://slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/101428
Perhaps we should hash it out there where posting will not be suspended after a while.
all the best,
drew
Not only that, if it is just a donation, and not actually a fine, they will take a tax deduction on account of their "gift".
all the best,
drew
"Toward that end, the label group agreed to companywide reforms to detect and prevent future abuses and is making a $10 million donation to local charities to fund programs aimed at music education and appreciation."
/ index.jhtml?headlines=true
That quote is from this link:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1506321/20050725
So, was ti a $10 million fine with a $10 million donation thrown in for good measure?
all the best,
drew
"Corporations are given too much criminal protection."
I agree. Would you care to comment on this thought about "jail time" for corporations:
http://slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/101428
Dude,
we have got to outlaw book groups!
all the best,
drew
"That is the only time I support public (government) intervention into such corporate affairs."
Since Disney is a big player in the copyright area, the government is already mixed up in the middle of their affairs.
all the best,
drew
I think he is referring to the problem that, what is it, the affero license is trying to correct?
I could be mis-reading that though.
I don't buy that I, as a GPL coder, am a big loser though. I may not be as big a winner as some, but I cam certqainly no loser in this game.
all the best,
drew
http://yp.peercast.org/?find=bysa&Submit=Search
"This guy is following the license and spirit of the GPL, and making money doing it. People should be patting him on the back, not giving him a hard time."
If you read the posts, you will see that some people do not think he is following the spirit of Free Software. Making money from it is not the problem for them though.
Isn't this software based on java? Care to comment on his devotion to the spirit of Free Software?
all the best,
drew
http://yp.peercast.org/?find=bysa&Submit=Search
"Now, the trick they use is to purposely not document their work, it is free indeed, but just try to use it. Oh, you want support? Write a check to....."
"One thing with people who only do it for the money is that I tend not to trust them not to make things unnecessarily complex in order to earn the service/consulting money."
My point exactly. I think the tactic is so unnecessay and counterproductive. There are always going to be real problems and opportunities and people will always pay to make their lives better. We don't need to create fake problems to get them to pay us to fix.
When I find people who do this, I try to stay well clear of them.
all the best,
drew
http://yp.peercast.org/?find=bysa&Submit=Search
I guess my effort at humour did not fly...
all the best,
drew
Here is a link to a relevant page on the jboss site:
http://www.jboss.org/company/pos
So, he obviously seems to think you can make money writing "open source" software.
Lately, I am thinking that a more interesting question is one that should be on the minds of Free Software users...
What are some important factors that I should look at in assessing "the total development environment" of the software I am depending on?
all the best,
drew
http://yp.peercast.org/?find=bysa&Submit=Search
I may be a GNU freak, but I oscillate between clean shaven and stubble. Haven't worn anything close to a beard in years.
As to being a dirty hippie, I missed that movement by about ten years. My hair got longer than I wear it today, but it never really made it down to my shoulders. Dirty? Well, no shower yet this morning so I am not totally fresh, but I wouldn't go so far as dirty.
Clearly, in peering at me through the internet, your fibre got crossed and you saw someone else.
all the best,
drew
If he really has this attitude, he is sadly mistaken and most likely being a jerk.
A lot of my motivation for contributing is a way saying thanks.
How does he pay for all of his foundations? Or is he just a taker?
Since his stuff is Free (if it is) you can look at it as who cares?
One thing with people who only do it for the money is that I tend not to trust them not to make things unnecessarily complex in order to earn the service/consulting money.
In any case... Go Free Software.
all the best,
drew
Doesn't work for people who can't get paypal... Like me...
all the best,
drew
"It's there because he bought a piece of equipment that effectively installed its own "Open House" sign."
A point I made earlier (in me reading.) So bring the device maker up on charges for wrongfully installing the open house sign, not the person so saw the sign and walked in to the open house innocently.
all the best,
drew
http://yp.peercast.org/?find=bysa&Submit=Search
"It's even more than that. The wireless router received a standard, "can I have legitimate credentials on this network?" request in the form of a DHCP lease request."
Yes, and the real culprit here is the device manufacturers who ship these devices with default open policies to make it easier to just plug and go without knowing anything and without having to configure them on initial setup.
all the best,
drew
http://yp.peercast.org/?find=bysa&Submit=Search
"Microsoft's dominance on the desktop is helping the company extend its reach into the fast growing VoIP business, thus putting it in direct competition with the likes of Cisco."
So, what Cisco needs to do is put sneaky code into its routers that identifies traffic between two MS products and "messes" with it. ~;-)
all the best,
drew
"Slashdotters can now go see sights like Buckingham Palace or the Arc de Triomphe from the comfort of their own swivelchairs."
o pyright
Eiffel Tower - I guess you can only see the tower in the dayt time as showing the lights of the Eiffel Tower would be a copyright violation!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_c
Or can they?
all the best,
drew
Ok, thanks again for your patience and your kind answers.
I am not from the US, but these things interest me. I think our copyright laws have been changed within the last 10 or 15 years. I saw something in the paper the other day and asked around and have been told that here, simple possession of a cd or dvd that was burned (duplicated) in violation of copyrights can result in a 5 year prision term (it may have been 4 years, I can't remember now.
That seemed odd to me so I clarified and said suppose someone went into a normal everyday store and bought a cd or dvd that looked legit. They take it home. Later, for some reason, it is found to not be a legit copy. Is this person liable to jail? The answer I got was yes. (There is also a hugh fine that goes along with the possible jail time. Perhaps fine is not the right term, I don't know who would get the money.)
all the best,
drew
"Liable, not guilty. Civil suits deal with liability; criminal suits deal with guilt. And there are higher standards for criminal infringement; they're not strict liability."
Sorry, OK liable. Not being a lawyer, I sometimes miss being precise in my words.
Which does bring up another question (sorry for having so many, I just hope the thread will serve to educate others as well.) Isn't there a criminal side to this whole copyright infringement business these days? If so, when does the criminal come into play?
"Anyway, yes, it doesn't matter what they intended. If they undertake an infringing action, they're liable."
OK then. That hurts. But after learning that the statutory damages are variable, the situation is not as bad as I had envisioned. Is it the judge who decides on the amounts in all instances? Is there ever a jury involved?
"For infringement, the statutory damages are within the range of $750 - $30,000 per work, as the court finds to be appropriate."
Wasn't there a $200 figure mentioned earlier, when would that come in?
"If the plaintiff can show that the infringement was willful (this does get into the infringer's mental state),"
Does it matter if the act was willful or if the intent to infringe was willful? As in:
I willfully made a copy knowing it was a copyright violation to do so, versus I willfully made a copy, but I thought it was not a copytight violation to do so, versus, I did not willfully make the copy, but I made it anyway.
all the best,
drew
"Statements along those lines may or may not work. Given the overall course of action you'd be undertaking, I'd be surprised if a court didn't find that you had implicitly authorized the people you mailed to view the works, with all that entailed."
Since in the situation I outlined, I would not have any rights to even make copies for myself much less authorize someone else to do so, I don't see how this can be so.
"So it's likely you'd end up losing money. It's further likely that you'd end up getting sued yourself for trying to run the scam, and that angry judges would hold you in contempt if you tried it a second time.
I really would not try it, if I were you."
Oh, I have no intention of trying something so crooked, or something so stupid.
I got into this whole line as a result of a statement that the intent of the person making the unauthorized copy did not enter into the matter. I tried to set up a situation where a person clearly had no intention to violate anyone's copyright end yet did make a copy of someone's copyrighted work without their permission to do so. The particulars were just some invented way to have this happen.
I still don't see you saying that, indeed it doesn't matter what they intended, they made a copy, they had no permission from the copyright holder to do so and thus they are guilty. (And under the statutory damages deal, they could face hugh fines.) Are they guilty? Would they face such fines if the work was registered?
You have taught me something I was previously ignorant of though (I think) as I did not know that the statutory damages deal had minimum and maximum fines. If I read you right, would you care to enlighten us further?
all the best,
drew