Well then, by your logic, we should be creating laws against emptying a purse that's not yours, as a double deterrent to purse snatchers. Or how about tacking on an extra ten years for ejecting spent casings from a gun - that stiffer penalty will scare murderers straight. Or, instead of making ridiculous laws, we could just beef up current ones.
Just slap some racing stripes on it and call it a day. Racing stripes are proven to make everything more aerodynamic. This translates to fuel savings. You can use the saved cash to replace the processor when the cooling system springs a leak.
I guess since they're not stifling compatability with DMCA lawsuits this week, it's ok to spend $70 (CDN) on their software and fund their lawyers! Thanks anyways...I'll keep my WineX subscription, but I'll only buy games from developers that don't screw us.
Guilty as charged. I was trolling. Even so, I appreciate that to some extent I'm sure we ALL understand laws. The point is, if there's any chance to fight the DMCA, it lies with competent lawyers and not just some guy who sort of understands law. But the whole part about the general slashdot attitude of "I understand all things, for I am g33k. All others know nothing" wears thin after a while. Sometime, just for fun, actually READ some of the shit that gets modded up here, when the poster is obviously clueless. I guess that's what makes/. fun.
Your biting edginess amuses me! Here goes my karma...I agree with you. But you forget, the parent poster here is a slashdot reader. To him, everything is perfectly understandable. He understands the subtleties of law and how to effectively debate them. He understands physics, cryptography, biology, auto mechanics, needlepoint, basket weaving, and calculus. Everyone here is an expert on all things. On the flip side of this, non-geeks know nothing. How could a politician ever understand technology? Laws are so horrible because politicians "just don't get it". Nobody really understands anything, except the slashdot reader. So, yeah, I agree with you entirely, but you're just gonna get modded to oblivion...like me.
The thing is, though it may be hard to prove they're dealing in stolen goods, that's going to be how the cops get them. Hacking a cell phone isn't a *visible* crime like stealing a car or robbing a bank. The only times these guys will be visible is when they purchase the phones and when they sell them. And if the police can't prove they're buying and selling stolen phones, they shouldn't be able to invent new laws to make up for their inability to enforce the existing ones. Especially when those new laws can make innocent hobbyists into felons.
He doesn't encourage cracking into other peoples systems, only testing the security of software. This can be done on local machines. Big difference. If I pick the lock on my own front door, is that breaking in?
Of course there's a legitimate reason to change the number: to see if you can. Many people like to tinker with electronics. Sure, pretty much anything you could do with it would be illegal, but it shouldn't be illegal to tinker with something. Let the existing laws deal with theft of service. I mean, if I rip the VIN plate out of a car that just sits in the garage, should I be arrested? What about if I file the serial number off of my toaster? So long as nothing illegal is being done with it, why should it be illegal to modify?
The only argument I can see is if you actually bought the phone legit then hacked the number (cloning) to get free service. But I would imagine that theft of cell service is already covered under some law, so again this law is pretty much redundant. Chances are if you're hacking the phone, you're using it for an illegal purpose. If you're just tinkering it should be fine, but once you sell the hacked phone or use it to steal service you're breaking existing laws. No need to make new ones.
But it's already illegal to steal. Think hard. Does this law actually do anything more to deter thieves, or only make things illegal for tinkerers? If the only place this law will be applicable is on stolen phones, and stealing them is already illegal, then this law ultimately serves no purpose that couldn't be served by enforcing stiffer penalties on thieves.
You make quite a few valid points, but you're missing the key point that I was trying to make. McDonald's owns a trademark on the name "McDonald's". While you may be able to get away with Olde McDonald's Scotch Whiskey, you'd sure as hell have a hard time of getting mcdonalds.com. The reason is because you could just as easily get oldemcdonaldsscotchwhiskey.com. I may be in the minority, but to me this seems fair. X/Open should be entitled to unix.com since they own the trademark on "UNIX" and they are a company (hence the.com). If the people who currently own unix.com couldn't get unix.net or unix.org, they could have just as easily taken unixchat.com, since they seem to be a user forum. But companies who own trademarks should have the right to their domains. If the unix.com people want a website, they should take up their beef with unix.net or unix.org instead of taking a dot COM from a COMpany.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine that if the domain was registered in '93 but the trademark wasn't registered until '96 then the original owners of the domain could make a case that since they had the name first they were entitled to it. I'm just guessing, though. If anyone can tell me why I'm wrong I'd love to know.
I'll have to read up on NAT. I always thought the router handled what traffic went to which internal address based on the outgoing port number used. That to me would make more sense anyways, since the internal addresses would be entirely invisible.
The.com TLD is meant for COMpanies. Therefore, a company who owns the trademark UNIX should be entitled to the domain unix.com. Or so, that's how I think. I may be in the minority...
Hmm....Frontpage (a Microsoft product) produces web pages that render properly in Internet Explorer (a Microsoft product) but that don't render properly in other web browsers (non Microsoft products) despite the fact that the other web browsers adhere to standards. Are you on the trolley yet?
erm...as far as I know, a NAT router only has one MAC address. All outgoing traffic goes through the router and thus appears to come from the same MAC. Plus, most good broadband routers will allow you to 'clone' the MAC of a machine on the internal network, so your isp will never even notice. Many isps already restrict access to one MAC *cough*Cogeco*cough* but my router shows the same MAC as my pc.
Whether or not UNIX is a "generic term" is irrelevant to the case. "Coke" is a generic term. "Shell" is a generic term. There are literally thousands of generic terms that are trademarked as company names. Unless X/Open trademarked the term *after* 1993 when the domain was registered, they have every right to get it back. For once, this isn't about a company abusing the system, it's about a company laying claim to what is rightfully theirs.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? Isn't the whole point of ICANN that they aren't controlled by a government? If they had to be accountable to the U.S. government, then why not to every country's governemnt? And then what would we have?
You're close, but I don't think you have it quite right. You're still thinking like the old america. In the old america, it could actually be a half a million dollar *lawsuit*. But nowadays, it's a half a million dollar *fine*. Copyright isn't a civil matter anymore. This is a felony, according to the new laws.
You can set up a cron job to request their page every few seconds. There most likely won't be any new information, so it's probably safe to pipe the output to/dev/null. I think we should all do this. Unify!
Re:We don't need legislation to stay within the la
on
RIAA Smacked by DoS
·
· Score: 2
By 5:00EDT I'm assuming you mean 5:00am. I won't be awake at that ungodly hour, so I've already set up a cron job to take care of this task for me. Glad to be part of the greater cause.
Slashdot Mirror
So by getting higher quality, you don't feel so bad about getting gouged by the MPAA? If it upsets you, just stop giving them your dollars.
Hopefully nobody working for the MPAA has mod points today, or your karma's gonna get HOSED.
Well then, by your logic, we should be creating laws against emptying a purse that's not yours, as a double deterrent to purse snatchers. Or how about tacking on an extra ten years for ejecting spent casings from a gun - that stiffer penalty will scare murderers straight. Or, instead of making ridiculous laws, we could just beef up current ones.
I'm a l337 master modder. Here's my input:
Just slap some racing stripes on it and call it a day. Racing stripes are proven to make everything more aerodynamic. This translates to fuel savings. You can use the saved cash to replace the processor when the cooling system springs a leak.
Hope this helps.
I guess since they're not stifling compatability with DMCA lawsuits this week, it's ok to spend $70 (CDN) on their software and fund their lawyers! Thanks anyways...I'll keep my WineX subscription, but I'll only buy games from developers that don't screw us.
Guilty as charged. I was trolling. Even so, I appreciate that to some extent I'm sure we ALL understand laws. The point is, if there's any chance to fight the DMCA, it lies with competent lawyers and not just some guy who sort of understands law. But the whole part about the general slashdot attitude of "I understand all things, for I am g33k. All others know nothing" wears thin after a while. Sometime, just for fun, actually READ some of the shit that gets modded up here, when the poster is obviously clueless. I guess that's what makes /. fun.
Your biting edginess amuses me! Here goes my karma...I agree with you. But you forget, the parent poster here is a slashdot reader. To him, everything is perfectly understandable. He understands the subtleties of law and how to effectively debate them. He understands physics, cryptography, biology, auto mechanics, needlepoint, basket weaving, and calculus. Everyone here is an expert on all things. On the flip side of this, non-geeks know nothing. How could a politician ever understand technology? Laws are so horrible because politicians "just don't get it". Nobody really understands anything, except the slashdot reader. So, yeah, I agree with you entirely, but you're just gonna get modded to oblivion...like me.
The thing is, though it may be hard to prove they're dealing in stolen goods, that's going to be how the cops get them. Hacking a cell phone isn't a *visible* crime like stealing a car or robbing a bank. The only times these guys will be visible is when they purchase the phones and when they sell them. And if the police can't prove they're buying and selling stolen phones, they shouldn't be able to invent new laws to make up for their inability to enforce the existing ones. Especially when those new laws can make innocent hobbyists into felons.
He doesn't encourage cracking into other peoples systems, only testing the security of software. This can be done on local machines. Big difference. If I pick the lock on my own front door, is that breaking in?
Of course there's a legitimate reason to change the number: to see if you can. Many people like to tinker with electronics. Sure, pretty much anything you could do with it would be illegal, but it shouldn't be illegal to tinker with something. Let the existing laws deal with theft of service. I mean, if I rip the VIN plate out of a car that just sits in the garage, should I be arrested? What about if I file the serial number off of my toaster? So long as nothing illegal is being done with it, why should it be illegal to modify?
The only argument I can see is if you actually bought the phone legit then hacked the number (cloning) to get free service. But I would imagine that theft of cell service is already covered under some law, so again this law is pretty much redundant. Chances are if you're hacking the phone, you're using it for an illegal purpose. If you're just tinkering it should be fine, but once you sell the hacked phone or use it to steal service you're breaking existing laws. No need to make new ones.
But it's already illegal to steal. Think hard. Does this law actually do anything more to deter thieves, or only make things illegal for tinkerers? If the only place this law will be applicable is on stolen phones, and stealing them is already illegal, then this law ultimately serves no purpose that couldn't be served by enforcing stiffer penalties on thieves.
You make quite a few valid points, but you're missing the key point that I was trying to make. McDonald's owns a trademark on the name "McDonald's". While you may be able to get away with Olde McDonald's Scotch Whiskey, you'd sure as hell have a hard time of getting mcdonalds.com. The reason is because you could just as easily get oldemcdonaldsscotchwhiskey.com. I may be in the minority, but to me this seems fair. X/Open should be entitled to unix.com since they own the trademark on "UNIX" and they are a company (hence the .com). If the people who currently own unix.com couldn't get unix.net or unix.org, they could have just as easily taken unixchat.com, since they seem to be a user forum. But companies who own trademarks should have the right to their domains. If the unix.com people want a website, they should take up their beef with unix.net or unix.org instead of taking a dot COM from a COMpany.
Wow, that's the second time you've plugged this site in this thread. Are you an employee?
I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine that if the domain was registered in '93 but the trademark wasn't registered until '96 then the original owners of the domain could make a case that since they had the name first they were entitled to it. I'm just guessing, though. If anyone can tell me why I'm wrong I'd love to know.
I can't get to the link. It's been flash-crowded already.
I'll have to read up on NAT. I always thought the router handled what traffic went to which internal address based on the outgoing port number used. That to me would make more sense anyways, since the internal addresses would be entirely invisible.
The .com TLD is meant for COMpanies. Therefore, a company who owns the trademark UNIX should be entitled to the domain unix.com. Or so, that's how I think. I may be in the minority...
Hmm....Frontpage (a Microsoft product) produces web pages that render properly in Internet Explorer (a Microsoft product) but that don't render properly in other web browsers (non Microsoft products) despite the fact that the other web browsers adhere to standards. Are you on the trolley yet?
erm...as far as I know, a NAT router only has one MAC address. All outgoing traffic goes through the router and thus appears to come from the same MAC. Plus, most good broadband routers will allow you to 'clone' the MAC of a machine on the internal network, so your isp will never even notice. Many isps already restrict access to one MAC *cough*Cogeco*cough* but my router shows the same MAC as my pc.
Whether or not UNIX is a "generic term" is irrelevant to the case. "Coke" is a generic term. "Shell" is a generic term. There are literally thousands of generic terms that are trademarked as company names. Unless X/Open trademarked the term *after* 1993 when the domain was registered, they have every right to get it back. For once, this isn't about a company abusing the system, it's about a company laying claim to what is rightfully theirs.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? Isn't the whole point of ICANN that they aren't controlled by a government? If they had to be accountable to the U.S. government, then why not to every country's governemnt? And then what would we have?
You're close, but I don't think you have it quite right. You're still thinking like the old america. In the old america, it could actually be a half a million dollar *lawsuit*. But nowadays, it's a half a million dollar *fine*. Copyright isn't a civil matter anymore. This is a felony, according to the new laws.
You can set up a cron job to request their page every few seconds. There most likely won't be any new information, so it's probably safe to pipe the output to /dev/null. I think we should all do this. Unify!
By 5:00EDT I'm assuming you mean 5:00am. I won't be awake at that ungodly hour, so I've already set up a cron job to take care of this task for me. Glad to be part of the greater cause.