> If they want to invest in lawyers instead of developers they should prepare to sue a lot > of people and organizations all over the world. And that includes countries where there > alleged basis for sueing does not even exist.
I don't think a whole lot of software development goes on in countries where contracts do not exist. Hint: their basis for suing does not apply to anyone who has not purchased a copy of Endnotes and agreed to the purchase contract.
They haven't, they reverse engineered the file format for it's styles.
I didn't say that the defendants had done or not done anything. I said that the plaintiffs allege that the defendants had reverse-engineered the program, thereby breaching the contract.
> even if Zotero does allow users to convert from EndNote's style format to other formats, > there's nothing inherently illegal about that.
Reuters is not claiming (at least in the initial complaint) that there is. They are claiming that the defendants contracted not to reverse-engineer Endnotes and then did so, breaching the contract.
> this is like suing filesystem developers because they include a copy feature in their > software that allows users to potentially make illegal copies of files.
> Is it possible in the US to use an EULA to prevent third parties to read your > proprietary formats?
It's not clear what you are asking. Someone who is not a party to a contract is not bound by the terms of that contract. Reuters is claiming that GMU entered into a contract with them as one of the conditions under which Reuters sold GMU copies of Endnotes and then breached that contract. No third parties are involved.
> Do you think the legislator should better enforce interoperability provisions?
Again, it is not clear what you are asking. This is a civil lawsuit for breach of contract.
It should also be noted that as Reuters is claiming only breach of contract this suit will not prevent anyone not affiliated with the defendants from distributing and/or using the software. The project can continue if anyone is interested in continuing it even if GMU loses or gives up. I hope lots of people have downloaded the source.
> By the way, this does mean that there should be oversight of the certifying agencies > that do the independent testing.
And who will oversee the overseers? And how can the agencies be independent when they are being "overseen"?
> After all, information is only as good as the methods with which it is produced. If we > can't rely on standardized testing methods and agencies to perform the testing then the > whole exercise is moot.
Well, it's moot, then, because you cannot totally rely on any single agency for anything. That's why you have indepenedent groups do indepenedent tests. Except, if they are all "overseen" by the same overseer, they are not independent. In fact, there is in effect only one agency.
More to the point, if you are using one of these free ad ageny supplied services you surely are not using it for anything important or sensitive anyway.
Of course they are biased: they are the plaintiff's witness. That is irrelevant. However, Minnesota does require that private investigators have state licenses. If MediaSentry was indeed acting as a private investigator and was not licensed it is probable that none of their testimony or evidence is admissable at all. Unfortunately this was not brought up at the first trial and so the judge may not allow it to be brought up at the second.
> IANA Lawyer, but I think there still might be a case to be made against MediaSentry for > entrapment.
This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. Entrapment is meaningless. However, she could claim that by requesting the files (if they ever did so) the copyright owner's agent, MediaSentry, granted her an implicit license to send it to them.
> Granted, most likely it will count because if you sell drugs to a cop you still go to > jail.
Irrelevant. Selling illegal drugs is a crime regardless of who you sell them to. Distributing music is only a tort (no crime involved here) if you do so without the permission of the copyright owner. How could giving a copy to the copyright owner be said to have been done without said owner's permission? And even if it could how could doing so damage them?
For that matter did MediaSentry ever produce proof that they actually downloaded the files? Aren't many of these cases based on just having observed the file names?
> In short, in two or three generations when all the people who don't know basic computer > security and operation have died, and not being able to spot a phishing scam will be > looked upon much the same way that being illiterate is now, then the problem will have > fixed itself.
It would appear that you believe that all of those who "grew up with computers" know basic computer security and operation. This is just as true as it is that all of those who "grew up with books" are able to read and understand James Joyce.
Clever idea, but marketing would insist that the product ship with a default string and most users would never change it. Don't forget that this is an industry that ships security hardware with default passwords.
Slashdot Mirror
> If they want to invest in lawyers instead of developers they should prepare to sue a lot
> of people and organizations all over the world. And that includes countries where there
> alleged basis for sueing does not even exist.
I don't think a whole lot of software development goes on in countries where contracts do not exist. Hint: their basis for suing does not apply to anyone who has not purchased a copy of Endnotes and agreed to the purchase contract.
2007: "IT? That's sooo 2000! They all lost their jobs in the dot-com bust! Finance is where it's at!"
2008: "Finance? That's sooo 2007! They all lost their jobs in the Wall Street bust! IT is where it's at!"
Do you really want those people?
Sorry. That AC's article was not visible here until now for some unfathomable reason.
I didn't say that the defendants had done or not done anything. I said that the plaintiffs allege that the defendants had reverse-engineered the program, thereby breaching the contract.
What are you responding to? It isn't my article.
Mod parent up.
> even if Zotero does allow users to convert from EndNote's style format to other formats,
> there's nothing inherently illegal about that.
Reuters is not claiming (at least in the initial complaint) that there is. They are claiming that the defendants contracted not to reverse-engineer Endnotes and then did so, breaching the contract.
> this is like suing filesystem developers because they include a copy feature in their
> software that allows users to potentially make illegal copies of files.
No it isn't.
> Is it possible in the US to use an EULA to prevent third parties to read your
> proprietary formats?
It's not clear what you are asking. Someone who is not a party to a contract is not bound by the terms of that contract. Reuters is claiming that GMU entered into a contract with them as one of the conditions under which Reuters sold GMU copies of Endnotes and then breached that contract. No third parties are involved.
> Do you think the legislator should better enforce interoperability provisions?
Again, it is not clear what you are asking. This is a civil lawsuit for breach of contract.
It should also be noted that as Reuters is claiming only breach of contract this suit will not prevent anyone not affiliated with the defendants from distributing and/or using the software. The project can continue if anyone is interested in continuing it even if GMU loses or gives up. I hope lots of people have downloaded the source.
> By the way, this does mean that there should be oversight of the certifying agencies
> that do the independent testing.
And who will oversee the overseers? And how can the agencies be independent when they are being "overseen"?
> After all, information is only as good as the methods with which it is produced. If we
> can't rely on standardized testing methods and agencies to perform the testing then the
> whole exercise is moot.
Well, it's moot, then, because you cannot totally rely on any single agency for anything. That's why you have indepenedent groups do indepenedent tests. Except, if they are all "overseen" by the same overseer, they are not independent. In fact, there is in effect only one agency.
More to the point, if you are using one of these free ad ageny supplied services you surely are not using it for anything important or sensitive anyway.
Are you?
But we already have DIS29500.
> The only issue to be resolved, at this point, is how reprehensible the court finds the
> defendant's conduct.
In addition to the issue of whether any infringement occurred at all.
The DMCA has nothing to do with this case.
Of course they are biased: they are the plaintiff's witness. That is irrelevant. However,
Minnesota does require that private investigators have state licenses. If MediaSentry was indeed acting as a private investigator and was not licensed it is probable that none of their testimony or evidence is admissable at all. Unfortunately this was not brought up at the first trial and so the judge may not allow it to be brought up at the second.
> IANA Lawyer, but I think there still might be a case to be made against MediaSentry for
> entrapment.
This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. Entrapment is meaningless. However, she could claim that by requesting the files (if they ever did so) the copyright owner's agent, MediaSentry, granted her an implicit license to send it to them.
> Granted, most likely it will count because if you sell drugs to a cop you still go to
> jail.
Irrelevant. Selling illegal drugs is a crime regardless of who you sell them to. Distributing music is only a tort (no crime involved here) if you do so without the permission of the copyright owner. How could giving a copy to the copyright owner be said to have been done without said owner's permission? And even if it could how could doing so damage them?
For that matter did MediaSentry ever produce proof that they actually downloaded the files? Aren't many of these cases based on just having observed the file names?
But you are expected to trust some obscure German software company. Right.
The sad thing is, some of you will (but then, you already use Windows...)
"We believe beta has a different meaning when applied to applications on the Web," says a company spokesman."
Others believe beta has no meaning at all when applied to applications on Google.
> Would it be better if the test subjects clicked No? If the popups were malicious then
> couldn't they label "OK" as "NO" and "Cancel" as "YES"?
They'd get very little malware installed that way.
> ...most users are just bags of water and foul smelling gasses.
By george, I think he's got it!
> In short, in two or three generations when all the people who don't know basic computer
> security and operation have died, and not being able to spot a phishing scam will be
> looked upon much the same way that being illiterate is now, then the problem will have
> fixed itself.
It would appear that you believe that all of those who "grew up with computers" know basic computer security and operation. This is just as true as it is that all of those who "grew up with books" are able to read and understand James Joyce.
Clever idea, but marketing would insist that the product ship with a default string and most users would never change it. Don't forget that this is an industry that ships security hardware with default passwords.
> It doesn't "cop out" and use cheap and easy electronics, therefore it is
> impressive.
It "cops out" by using LEDs instead of doing something clever with mirrors and sunlight or similar. They're an ugly anachronism.
No. Best would be hundreds of oil lamps. Gas lamps might be acceptable as long as they used coal gas. Limelight might be acceptable.