I have seen lots of odd problems with XP Home getting dhcp leases from linux router/gateways.
Not getting the lease in the first place, dropping it and not getting a renewal. It has been so bad with some machines that I have given up and assigned a static address after which the problems went away.
"I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious here, but either way, it's irrelevant."
I am being serious. I am interested in what the relative penalties are in different places? Are the ratios similar around the world? Do some places consider some of the crimes relatively more serious than other places?
First, thanks for the answers. So, how do they protect the image of celebrity animals? Trademark?
"If the architect developed truely custom (i.e., copyrightable) plans, and you only paid for one license, then yeah, I guess he could."
Do the standard architect's contracts mention a license to build at all?
Do you know if a very short poem, standing on its own, get's copyright protection these days? IIRC, this was an issue at one time.
Now, it is given that to obtain copyright protection, a work must be "fixed." Is this not prejudicial towards those cultures of an oral tradition? (I ask this to readers in general, but answer if you like.) Again, for those of the "intellectual property" persuasion, what is the moral justification for this distinction?
Here is another, can you take a picture of a car with a highly custom paint job?
You answers, "Maybe copyrightable", etc. are interesting in light that copyright obtains automatically when a work is fixed does it not?
Just further as to "public places"... So, private property can be considered a public place? A mall parking lot? Inside of a mall? Inside of a sports stadium, dome, arena?
"Well, it's not MY thinking -- architectural works are covered under copyright law in the U.S., which means that the copyright owner can control reproduction, derivative works, etc."
As a matter of fact, can he not prevent you from building two buildings from the same set of plans even though you paid him to make those plans for you?
And why would it not be a work for hire?
But how do the "intellectual property" proponents justify such exemptions?
What is a public place? Is it the same as public property? So, no pictures inside of the buildings?
Other things I may hold copyright on. (They are at least my intellectual creations and according to the "intellectual property" proponents should be mine to control.)
My hairdo including the shape and colourings.
My poodle's cut.
The tree in my yard.
The other tree in my yard which I have trimmed in the shape of a rocket ship I designed.
The paint scheme on my house.
By the way, you did not list a (c) the right to change the colour scheme of the building from that planned by the architect.
Any other places have similar laws and exceptions?
"Actually, in the UK, in some situations a parent can be held accountable for the actions of their children. Surprisingly, a few parents have gone to prison due to the persistent truanting of their offspring."
The modern world seems intent on restricting more and more the authority parents hold over their children while at the same time holding them more and more liable for the actions of those children.
"No, you haven't taken any property -- but you may very well have infringed a copyright I (or my acrhitect) might hold on the architectural design of the house..."
Now this is interesting. According to your thinking, it would be illegal to photograph or for an artist to paint a picture of a house I designed and built and still own. Are you sure of the law in this area? Anyone?
I can go on with more examples/questions. If any lawyers would care to answer for your respective areas, I am sure we caould all learn a lot.
"Fine. Copyright violations are not theft. Feel better? There still are copyright laws on the books, however -- so even though you may not be criminally liable for theft, you can still be held civilly liable for copyright infringement. In fact, the civil penalties might be much worse than if you had simply stolen a song."
Actually, I believe there may be criminal penalties for copyright violations in some places.
Can anyone in the know tell us the maximum and average penalties for shoplifting a cd, rape, and copyright violation in your area? Might as well add price fixing while you are at it. Oh no wait, that should be covered under the request for the rape info if we are to use terminology they way people seem to like to do.
"Yeah. I reason it like this. What is a copyright? Well, break the words apart. Copy Right. The right to copy. If you make a copy without having that right, then you are STEALING that right from someone else. So it's STEALING!"
No, if i were to STEAL that right from them, I would have to gin up some false papers showing they had transferred their rights to me. Or perhaps I could do like they do and trick them into signing a lopsided deal with me that gives me the rights to what is theirs? Would you prefer I did it that way?
"*sigh* Since when did taking someone elses work without their permission and not paying them for it become acceptable?"
**sigh**sigh** In case you are not aware, it has always been legal and only became illegal in the last several hundred years.
Why do you feel it is important to defend rapists like this? Admit it, the music industry rapes the fans and they rape the artists. So the rape victim steals a little something back from the rapist. You object?
I know this is over the top, but you went there first. It is easy to play the twisted terms game.
I think we have them beat. Indications are that VoIP is already illegal here in the Bahamas.
If you care to poke around the The Public Utilities Commission web site you can check here:
http://www.pucbahamas.gov.bs/index.php
Mind you, I am not certain of what is meant by VoIP in the minds of the authorities, I take it they mean IP telephony, but who knows? Voice chat? Audio streaming? Video Streaming?
There was something in the local paper(s) a while back warning against it and mentioning hugh fines and jail time iirc.
If anyone knows the low down and would like to enlighten us, please do so.
"I would be more inclined to side with the latter of your definitions, but that is simply my personal feeling on the matter."
That would be the way I lean as well in the absence of greater evidence. I would note however that this would mean cruel punishment is ok as long as it is the usual punishment. I have seen people try to make the case that no cruel punishment is allowed at all, which would be fine but I have never heard a peep that if they are right it would mean that no unusual punishment would ever be allowed either.
It is a bit puzzling from my perspective.
"Having said that, it would be difficult to impossible for a highly unusual sentence to be imposed."
If unusual means "never having been imposed before" I don't know about that. The electric chair came in, the gas chamber, house arrest with radio monitoring.
I guess it would come down to how you went about defining unusual.
"Additionally, torture violates the 4th amendment, being necessarily cruel (though not necessarily unusual)."
I am not a US citizen, so I ask this out of ignorance. Seems I have always heard it quoted as a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Is this generally taken to mean ((no cruel punishment allowed) AND (no unusual punishment allowed)) or (no (cruel and unusual) punishment allowed)?
I always kind of figured the latter as I have never heard of a case being brought on the grounds that the punishment, while it may be humane, is unusual.
"You might be happy to know I already use the term rape as such."
Any ideas on how to get it to take hold in the vernacular?
Just want to see the aggressors in the copyright wars start to make the argument that words have proper meanings and that we should use the correct words to describe the correct things/actions.
I don't mean to be insensitive in this, but here goes.
Since we can't seem to get rid of the piracy and theft memes with respect to copyright, I propose we consider adding the rape meme.
As in those price fixing, for example, the selling price of CDs, are raping the public. They are copyright rapists. That company is a convicted rapist. Along those lines.
As in those taking undue advantage of artists are rapists as well?
See if they like such pejorative terms when applied to them. They seem to like such terms when applied to those they consider to be their opponents.
all the best,
drew
btw - three tabs open in firefox right now. slashdot, freshmeat and dictionary.com and I just got a popunder add for wall street advisor.
"I think I get what you're meaning, that because windows is so easy to admin every user screws it up for themselves?"
I was not trying to be extra obtuse. In any case, what I was getting at was that windows is promoted as being easy to admin. It is promoted as being intuitive. If it truly was as easy as it is claimed to be, we would not see so many poorly configured and messed up windows boxes now would we?
The last question is not directed at you but to those who promote windows as easy and intuitive.
"Tens to hundreds of desktops isn't a problem if they're set up properly."
And there's the rub...
Windoes is easy to administer yourself, just point andf click. Therefore, since it is so easy anyone can do it, all the windows machines must be set up properly and there is no problem.
If that's the case, you've got me, I just posted such a comment without reading the article. Synopsis was not clear though and since I am not that interested, why read the article.
Why post then? Just trying to clear up what looked like a misconception. I just gave some of those magazines away late last year.
The problem is the government is already totally mixed up in this market in the first place.
It comes down to right of way. It comes down to government control of the spectrum. They are in it, there is no free market. The debate should then come down to what is best for the public at large.
As I read a quote, it will outlaw all public and private communications in municipalities in Texas.
" The relevant section is 54.202, on page 87 of the pdf:
A municipality or munincipally owned utility may not, directly or indirectly, on its own or with another entity, offer to the public:
1. A service for which a certificate is required;
2. A service as a network provider; or
3. Any telecomunications or network service, without regard to the technology platform used to provide the service."
If the municipality is granting the right of way to the phone company and the cable company, then this would be illegal. "Directly or indirectly, on its own or with another entity" unless they try and say that it is the private entity making the offer, but I would think that is covered by indirectly. If it isn't, the bill has no teeth sice the municipality will be able to build out the infrastructure and lease it to a private entity at a nominal rate to make the offer.
Have I expressed myself clearly? Do you agree or disagree with the point?
Now, I am not a fan of government involvement in the marketplace, but I also like to deal with reality as well as theory.
"If someone does something from the goodness of their heart, it does NOT mean it is free. It costs time to do it. It requires tangible resources."
You know, talking of costs this way is not always right.
Estimates you arrive at like that often do not estimate what it cost to do something as it was done, but rather, what it would cost to do something if you paid for it to be done. It is very possible that the actual money spent on doing something will be vary different than the money that would have to be spent to pay someone to do it.
If I am sitting around with no job, bored, with nothing to do, and you are too, and I decide to write some code for fun, and you decide to watch the tube for fun, how much did my code cost? Assuming we each spent eight hours? And went to the bathroom twice? And how much did going to the bathroom cost?
How much does body elimination cost the country on a daily basis?
Now, again, these estimates may help us estimate the value of something, but not necessarily the actual cost of it. Yes? No?
And yes, it is _very_ refreshing. I find it inspiring as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The opposite? Wouldn't that be:
Considering how little research that most people put into their blogs I would definitely consider it a form of journalism.
Especially if you are stripping the wire with your teeth at the time!
I have seen lots of odd problems with XP Home getting dhcp leases from linux router/gateways.
Not getting the lease in the first place, dropping it and not getting a renewal. It has been so bad with some machines that I have given up and assigned a static address after which the problems went away.
Anyone else seen this?
"I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious here, but either way, it's irrelevant."
I am being serious. I am interested in what the relative penalties are in different places? Are the ratios similar around the world? Do some places consider some of the crimes relatively more serious than other places?
all the best,
drew
'"My poodle's cut."
Ditto.'
First, thanks for the answers. So, how do they protect the image of celebrity animals? Trademark?
"If the architect developed truely custom (i.e., copyrightable) plans, and you only paid for one license, then yeah, I guess he could."
Do the standard architect's contracts mention a license to build at all?
Do you know if a very short poem, standing on its own, get's copyright protection these days? IIRC, this was an issue at one time.
Now, it is given that to obtain copyright protection, a work must be "fixed." Is this not prejudicial towards those cultures of an oral tradition? (I ask this to readers in general, but answer if you like.) Again, for those of the "intellectual property" persuasion, what is the moral justification for this distinction?
Here is another, can you take a picture of a car with a highly custom paint job?
You answers, "Maybe copyrightable", etc. are interesting in light that copyright obtains automatically when a work is fixed does it not?
Just further as to "public places"... So, private property can be considered a public place? A mall parking lot? Inside of a mall? Inside of a sports stadium, dome, arena?
all the best,
drew
"Well, it's not MY thinking -- architectural works are covered under copyright law in the U.S., which means that the copyright owner can control reproduction, derivative works, etc."
As a matter of fact, can he not prevent you from building two buildings from the same set of plans even though you paid him to make those plans for you?
And why would it not be a work for hire?
But how do the "intellectual property" proponents justify such exemptions?
What is a public place? Is it the same as public property? So, no pictures inside of the buildings?
Other things I may hold copyright on. (They are at least my intellectual creations and according to the "intellectual property" proponents should be mine to control.)
My hairdo including the shape and colourings.
My poodle's cut.
The tree in my yard.
The other tree in my yard which I have trimmed in the shape of a rocket ship I designed.
The paint scheme on my house.
By the way, you did not list a (c) the right to change the colour scheme of the building from that planned by the architect.
Any other places have similar laws and exceptions?
all the best,
drew
"Actually, in the UK, in some situations a parent can be held accountable for the actions of their children. Surprisingly, a few parents have gone to prison due to the persistent truanting of their offspring."
The modern world seems intent on restricting more and more the authority parents hold over their children while at the same time holding them more and more liable for the actions of those children.
Anyone see this differently? (As to the facts.)
all the best,
drew
"No, you haven't taken any property -- but you may very well have infringed a copyright I (or my acrhitect) might hold on the architectural design of the house..."
Now this is interesting. According to your thinking, it would be illegal to photograph or for an artist to paint a picture of a house I designed and built and still own. Are you sure of the law in this area? Anyone?
I can go on with more examples/questions. If any lawyers would care to answer for your respective areas, I am sure we caould all learn a lot.
all the best,
drew
"Fine. Copyright violations are not theft. Feel better? There still are copyright laws on the books, however -- so even though you may not be criminally liable for theft, you can still be held civilly liable for copyright infringement. In fact, the civil penalties might be much worse than if you had simply stolen a song."
Actually, I believe there may be criminal penalties for copyright violations in some places.
Can anyone in the know tell us the maximum and average penalties for shoplifting a cd, rape, and copyright violation in your area? Might as well add price fixing while you are at it. Oh no wait, that should be covered under the request for the rape info if we are to use terminology they way people seem to like to do.
all the best,
drew
"Yeah. I reason it like this. What is a copyright? Well, break the words apart. Copy Right. The right to copy. If you make a copy without having that right, then you are STEALING that right from someone else. So it's STEALING!"
No, if i were to STEAL that right from them, I would have to gin up some false papers showing they had transferred their rights to me. Or perhaps I could do like they do and trick them into signing a lopsided deal with me that gives me the rights to what is theirs? Would you prefer I did it that way?
all the best,
drew
"*sigh* Since when did taking someone elses work without their permission and not paying them for it become acceptable?"
**sigh**sigh** In case you are not aware, it has always been legal and only became illegal in the last several hundred years.
Why do you feel it is important to defend rapists like this? Admit it, the music industry rapes the fans and they rape the artists. So the rape victim steals a little something back from the rapist. You object?
I know this is over the top, but you went there first. It is easy to play the twisted terms game.
all the best,
drew
Yeah but dude, if you have a slow machine it could take all day while they compile/rehearse the music.
all the best,
drew
I think we have them beat. Indications are that VoIP is already illegal here in the Bahamas.
If you care to poke around the The Public Utilities Commission web site you can check here:
http://www.pucbahamas.gov.bs/index.php
Mind you, I am not certain of what is meant by VoIP in the minds of the authorities, I take it they mean IP telephony, but who knows? Voice chat? Audio streaming? Video Streaming?
There was something in the local paper(s) a while back warning against it and mentioning hugh fines and jail time iirc.
If anyone knows the low down and would like to enlighten us, please do so.
all the best,
drew
"I would be more inclined to side with the latter of your definitions, but that is simply my personal feeling on the matter."
That would be the way I lean as well in the absence of greater evidence. I would note however that this would mean cruel punishment is ok as long as it is the usual punishment. I have seen people try to make the case that no cruel punishment is allowed at all, which would be fine but I have never heard a peep that if they are right it would mean that no unusual punishment would ever be allowed either.
It is a bit puzzling from my perspective.
"Having said that, it would be difficult to impossible for a highly unusual sentence to be imposed."
If unusual means "never having been imposed before" I don't know about that. The electric chair came in, the gas chamber, house arrest with radio monitoring.
I guess it would come down to how you went about defining unusual.
Anyone have any more input?
all the best,
drew
From a thread earlier that is archived:
"Additionally, torture violates the 4th amendment, being necessarily cruel (though not necessarily unusual)."
I am not a US citizen, so I ask this out of ignorance. Seems I have always heard it quoted as a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Is this generally taken to mean ((no cruel punishment allowed) AND (no unusual punishment allowed)) or (no (cruel and unusual) punishment allowed)?
I always kind of figured the latter as I have never heard of a case being brought on the grounds that the punishment, while it may be humane, is unusual.
Anyone care to enlighten us?
all the best,
drew
Yes, it just could be step 3!!!
all the best,
drew
"You might be happy to know I already use the term rape as such."
Any ideas on how to get it to take hold in the vernacular?
Just want to see the aggressors in the copyright wars start to make the argument that words have proper meanings and that we should use the correct words to describe the correct things/actions.
drew
"i would wager to guess dictionary.com."
That would have been my guess. An interesting note, it did not seem to appear as soon as I went there but rather about 30 to 60 seconds later.
drew
I don't mean to be insensitive in this, but here goes.
Since we can't seem to get rid of the piracy and theft memes with respect to copyright, I propose we consider adding the rape meme.
As in those price fixing, for example, the selling price of CDs, are raping the public. They are copyright rapists. That company is a convicted rapist. Along those lines.
As in those taking undue advantage of artists are rapists as well?
See if they like such pejorative terms when applied to them. They seem to like such terms when applied to those they consider to be their opponents.
all the best,
drew
btw - three tabs open in firefox right now. slashdot, freshmeat and dictionary.com and I just got a popunder add for wall street advisor.
"I think I get what you're meaning, that because windows is so easy to admin every user screws it up for themselves?"
I was not trying to be extra obtuse. In any case, what I was getting at was that windows is promoted as being easy to admin. It is promoted as being intuitive. If it truly was as easy as it is claimed to be, we would not see so many poorly configured and messed up windows boxes now would we?
The last question is not directed at you but to those who promote windows as easy and intuitive.
all the best,
drew
"Tens to hundreds of desktops isn't a problem if they're set up properly."
And there's the rub...
Windoes is easy to administer yourself, just point andf click. Therefore, since it is so easy anyone can do it, all the windows machines must be set up properly and there is no problem.
all the best,
drew
If that's the case, you've got me, I just posted such a comment without reading the article. Synopsis was not clear though and since I am not that interested, why read the article.
Why post then? Just trying to clear up what looked like a misconception. I just gave some of those magazines away late last year.
all the best,
drew
Done before in computer magazines it may even have been in the 70's, certainly early 80's.
Definately record type delivery, like the floppy records. Can't say for certain the material was vinyl though.
all the best,
drew
The problem is the government is already totally mixed up in this market in the first place.
It comes down to right of way. It comes down to government control of the spectrum. They are in it, there is no free market. The debate should then come down to what is best for the public at large.
As I read a quote, it will outlaw all public and private communications in municipalities in Texas.
" The relevant section is 54.202, on page 87 of the pdf:
A municipality or munincipally owned utility may not, directly or indirectly, on its own or with another entity, offer to the public:
1. A service for which a certificate is required;
2. A service as a network provider; or
3. Any telecomunications or network service, without regard to the technology platform used to provide the service."
If the municipality is granting the right of way to the phone company and the cable company, then this would be illegal. "Directly or indirectly, on its own or with another entity" unless they try and say that it is the private entity making the offer, but I would think that is covered by indirectly. If it isn't, the bill has no teeth sice the municipality will be able to build out the infrastructure and lease it to a private entity at a nominal rate to make the offer.
Have I expressed myself clearly? Do you agree or disagree with the point?
Now, I am not a fan of government involvement in the marketplace, but I also like to deal with reality as well as theory.
all the best,
drew
"If someone does something from the goodness of their heart, it does NOT mean it is free. It costs time to do it. It requires tangible resources."
You know, talking of costs this way is not always right.
Estimates you arrive at like that often do not estimate what it cost to do something as it was done, but rather, what it would cost to do something if you paid for it to be done. It is very possible that the actual money spent on doing something will be vary different than the money that would have to be spent to pay someone to do it.
If I am sitting around with no job, bored, with nothing to do, and you are too, and I decide to write some code for fun, and you decide to watch the tube for fun, how much did my code cost? Assuming we each spent eight hours? And went to the bathroom twice? And how much did going to the bathroom cost?
How much does body elimination cost the country on a daily basis?
Now, again, these estimates may help us estimate the value of something, but not necessarily the actual cost of it. Yes? No?
And yes, it is _very_ refreshing. I find it inspiring as well.
all the best,
drew