The company sponsoring the dot-xxx domain, the ICM Registry, said it had a vision of a red-light district in cyberspace that was a clean, well-lighted place, free of spam, viruses and credit card thieves.
... is totally unbelievable. It will be just another hub for spam, viruses, and credit card thieves.
You're trolling pretty hard here. Very few people have the audacity to browse pornography while at work, I bet most of them are congressmen or CEOs.
Actually, the staff were required to monitor porn sites as part of their job, to help guard against click fraud, since porn sites were a major part of the client base.
Plus the boss had his own private collection, currently sitting on an 8 x 1TB linux box (encrypted) in his house.
Surprisingly enough, the people who run the really big porn sites (at least the ones I've met) aren't into porn. For them, it's just about making money so they can spoil their wives with vacations and clothes and jewelry and give their kids the best education.
It makes sense that blue-eyed people of both sexes would fixate on blue eyes, since it's a very recent genetic modification (less than 10,000 years) and it does provide an indicator to paternity - but only for blue-eyed people who mate with other blue-eyed people. Since females don't have the same concerns over paternity, it makes sense that it would express itself in action only through blue-eyed males - and that's what we see. Blue-eyed males show a distinct preference for blue-eyed females.
What it doesn't explain is popular culture's ideation of blue eyes - after all, I don't see blue-eyed people buying contact lenses to change their eye color to brown. Similarly, there are a lot more brown-haired people coloring their hair blonde than the other way around.
Then again, maybe it does explain it. After all, if 3/4 of the population couldn't care less either way, but 1/4 has a strong biologically-based preference for blue eyes, the overall preference is going to be skewed towards blue eyes - and that's what we see. In less than 10,000 years, the genes for blue eyes have gone from 1 individual with a freak mutation to large portions of the population.
I just find it irrational and paradoxical that in an industry that's supposed to be based on logic, there's so much sexism.
I admit to bias - I have two daughters, and I don't want them discriminated against; I'm sure any parent wants the best for their kids.
But it is pervasive - to the point that even many women buy into it rather than rock the boat, or worse, because they actually believe it. Conditioned into having lower expectations, like other groups. I don't want that for my kids.
Of course it then extends outwards to the customers as well. You get some guys who have to "show they're boss" when they're buying stuff, just to impress their wife or girlfriend. Or they treat the receptionist like crap, or a non-person, because "they're just the receptionist."
Or just as bad, they'll assume, when dealing with a woman, that it's just a stepping-stone to dealing with "the man in charge".
Suppliers in general aren't so bad - they've learned that if you crap on the receptionist, your messages get mislaid (and many employers are now smart enough to look at your treatment of others as indicative of whether you're a "good fit". Treat the cleaning staff like crap, you won't be asked back to bid).
But there's still a long way to go... for both sexes.
2) IBM agrees to license its software on reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms on Hercules. This doesn't mean they need to support Hercules..
This is self-contradictory. If you license it, in the clients' mind, you support it, despite any and all disclaimers (and the disclaimers probably wouldn't hold up in many courts anyways - after all, you received a consideration - money - you can't then waive your obligations).
My primary concern about the mainframe case is the Hercules open source project, which started in 1999 and can therefore not be considered a Microsoft front by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
... by confabulating the Hercules project and Turbo Hercules. They are not the same.
1. I haven't met any programmers suffering from Asperger's Syndrom (I assume this is what "aspy" means, correct me if I'm wrong)
Some of them sure are suffering from something. From obsessive hand-washing (they won't even touch their mouse without 3 kleenex in between), to raging paranoia...
2. I haven't known any "sneering arrogant IT guys". The IT guys I've met have been normal, helpful human beings.
Get into a code meeting and watch the pissing contests begin.
3. I have seen some harsh emails, but not often and nothing like the venom you describe
I've seen emails from guys to their girlfriends - while they're married, living with their wife and kids. I've seen worse than emails - like guys coming in and sleeping because they spent the night cheating on their pregnant wife. That's pretty harsh.
4. I can't recall any "phallic compensation gadget consumerists", but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough...
5. I haven't met any "constantly helpful types who insult while trying to rescue"
Men who assume that women are too stupid or helpless to have tried the obvious? Or refusing a woman's help because "what could she know?"
6. I have seen some teenage male type usage of naked women pictures, but that's been quite rare. Do you think that teenage male types only exist in the tech industry?
I have *never* seen a guy that doesn't have p0rn on his computer, with one exception. a 30-something virgin who thought that the boss was spying on *everything* he did (I ended up having to write his on-line dating ads to TRY to get him a social life). No telling what he had on his home machine.
I'm not saying it's limited to one sex - just that from what I've seen, there's plenty of sexist behavior.
The fact is that blatant sexism exists in the industry.
It was there 15 years ago when I was brought in as an outside consultant - during all-coders meetings the guys would spend all their time in pissing contests. I finally went to Isabelle after one meeting and said "look, you and I both know they're full of it, and that your work is much better than theirs. Speak up - I'll back you all the way!" She felt she couldn't because she knew the guys would resent a woman being right.
The next gig - same thing. Watch out for the prima donnas - the guys. Can't bruise their egos. One in particular - Peter - "be careful because if he feels threatened he'll stop eating and he'll mope and make life miserable for everyone again."
Another gig - "Women don't have what it takes to be real programmers." Really?
Another gig - The men outnumbered the women 7 to 1... the testosterone was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Men - the after-interview discussion would revolve around whether they could do the job, how their white-board presentation went, their answers to questions. Women - "nice tits - does she have a boyfriend?"
Nothing has changed. If a woman expresses herself the same way a man does, "Stop PMSing". Don't put up with the sexist remarks or unwelcome advances? "You're a lesbian." Act HALF the prima donna that a guy does, "You're just a woman - stop being such a princess." If you're a woman, you opinion counts for less, you'll be second-guessed, paid less, and if you don't accept it you're such a c*nt. And if you DO get along with your boss, everyone else will automatically assume you're having some sort of an affair and that's why you have the job you do. White-board presentations? If after a year the men still only know what you look like from the neck down, why would you expect them to suddenly put their attention elsewhere?
If you don't believe it, videotape the next meeting, then watch the tape.
It's not just IT - I was in another office, and the woman who OWNS the company was talking to a guy-friend who's known her for years. We were talking about marketing, and discussing what people first notice about other people. She believed that men noticed the smile or the eyes. He agreed - "Absolutely!". I said "Absolutely NOT!" I put my clipboard between their faces, and asked "okay, so what color are her eyes?" He guessed - wrong... That relationship went downhill after that...
It's not just in IT - but you'd think that people would be a bit more intelligent in IT than elsewhere. They're not.
If they said $10,000,000 to whoever comes up with the keys...
Of course, then the drug lords would be bidding $20,000,000...
You'd have people embedding it in screen savers, games, apps, malware, botnets, etc.
Instead of having 3,000 people working on it, you'd have 300,000,000. To put it in perspective, that 142-year project would have been done in less than a day.
Even with supercomputer time, you're never going to crack anything the length of "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" (43 characters)
How about this: I don't need to crack YOUR password - I just need to come up with a transform that generates the same output as your password would have.
If I know that somewhere in that block of data is your email address. I can just start doing transforms at every offset - the ones that don't produce a match will quickly get eliminated (>99% will be eliminated on the first byte, ditto for subsequent bytes - think of it as a very efficient sieve of Eratosthenes tilted on edge). The ones that are left, continue. Eventually, I'll have many transforms and start positions that convert the binary data to the target phrase.
So I continue to apply the transform until either:
it's obvious that it was just an arbitrary piece of luck - it's not the transform I was looking for
I get the "good stuff" - it decrypts the whole block into something that makes sense,
I don't need your pass phrase, I don't need anything more than the maximum cycle length. I won't be able to decrypt all your stuff, but your email and spreadsheet data will probably be doable in a reasonable length of time, given today's hardware.
No, it says "The Online Me" - take the first letters T from The, O from Online, and M from me... you get tom - the online me.
Oh, right - I forgot - you can't read for beans. You went around accusing another slashdotter of being a felon when in fact it's YOU who is the one going around committing defamatory libel against them.
And no, I'm not arguing with you - I'm just making sure that if google or yahoo or whatever picks up this thread, they will find enough references to the fact that you are in fact slandering people by calling them felons when they aren't and that you lie a lot - for example, by falsely claiming to have registered copyrights to images when you did not. So posting anonymously isn't going to help - Michael Kristopeit is a liar who has libeled people by claiming that they were felons - and he made several false statements in an attempt to justify his lies.
look in your pants. you don't have a dick - you're not a tom.
i bet you hate that.
Not at all. Why do you think I replied with my full email instead of my short one? If I had hit reply, it would have gone from the last-name-only email account, which is where a lot of junk mail lands - I actually had to select a different profile manually to use my personalized email account. It's all there in my slashdot profile and journal.
Of course, for you a penis is very important - after all, you're a dick. That's why you have what, 2 fans?
you are NOTHING.
Michael Kristopeit: 2 fans
Me: 539 fans
Squiggleslash: 233 fans
For everyone watching: Kristopeit emailed both me and squiggy over some alleged "felony copyright infringement" by clone54321. I pointed out, in private, that he was wrong about the law (Title 17 is pretty clear), and that the best thing to do was to just ignore the whole thing and it would go away by Monday. It looks like squiggy did pretty much the same thing.
Rather than let it die down, the idiot posts one lie after another. First claiming that he has registered the copyrights (they are not - I checked), then claiming that they were registered to his business (they were not - I checked).
My only question for Kristopeit at this point is - do cmwmaw1978@comcast.net, number45@hockeyemail.com, rckristy@famvid.com, kevhag@yahoo.com, rachel@kristopeit.com, jokr56@yahoo.com, dave@kristopeit.com, trudy@kristopeit.com, tomkristopeit@hotmail.com, mrsbocchino@yahoo.com,
deanna_krisopeit@msn.net, rjhansen@execpc.com, grandpabaldy@mybluelight.com, ewridt@rlinet.net, rah1994@yahoo.com, rjhansen@execpc.com,
and pkristop@charter.net know that you spend your time attacking women who don't agree with you on the internet?
(and no, I waste time compiling the email list - it's a one-line curl command and a one-line cat | fgrep mailto)
Bullshit. I had a three button OPTICAL mouse on my PC before the Macintosh came out. True, it required that special metal mousepad to function, but it was still years ahead of what Apple had.
I remember those - I bought one for $110 at Crazy Irving.
In the above post, you claim that YOU own the copyrights.
images that infringe upon copyrights held by me, Michael Kristopeit.
kristopeit.com includes a copyright notice on every page attributing all rights to Michael Kristopeit.
And yet, when I pointed out that there is no copyright registration in your name in this post you claim that your business, not you, own the copyright.
You've been caught! You call clone54321 a felony copyright violator, but it's not a felony if there's no prior copyright registration, and the image has no commercial value.
Doesn't work that way, http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl107.html - same as patents have to be filed in an individual's name, and can then be assigned - copyright is a personal right. See circular 1 from the USCO.
You would have to register the copyright as the author/creator; then a subsequent transfer of copyright from the author to a business can be done, but it needs to be done in writing. SCO found that out the hard way. USCO has no record of you ever having any copyright to anything or being involved in any copyright transfer or application as a first or second party.
So unless you come up with a registration number, it's pretty obvious at this point that you lied.
Besides, you claimed that clone54321 infringed YOUR copyrights - not your business. So, were you lying then about you being the registered copyright holder, or are you lying now about your business being the registered copyright holder? You can't have it both ways (and I'm pretty sure it's neither - you never registered any copyrights).
So, like I said, it's ironic that the US Copyright Office says you are nothing.
I'm wondering how stable this person is - sending me stuff outing someone else's online identity is really stupid considering what I've been through the last month:-)
Sure, it could have been registered in the last few weeks, but someone who confuses a business license with copyright registration... I have my doubts.
This is the sort of thing that tempts me to do a write-up and post it in a few places (along with pics, of course:-) as an example to others of just how whoever says "I'm gonna sue the internetz" first is invariably a crank.
The USCO says you are nothing. Unless you can show a copyright registration, you have no grounds for a claim of felony copyright infringement against clone54321 or anyone else.
You made a claim that clone54321 is guilty of felony copyright infringement. You have no evidence of that - your typing something in all-caps doesn't make it so. You need to have registered the individual image with the US Copyright Office prior to the alleged offense.
the images did have registered copyrights. all of my images do. i have a business license to take and distribute photography.
Having a "business license to take and distribute photography" is irrelevant to the question of the registration of the individual image with the U.S. Copyright Office, as required for felony copyright infringement charges. Having a "business license" is irrelevant to the whole question of copyright. You're an idiot if you think otherwise. Read the Bern Convention.
So post the copyright registration # (as described here) for the image in question.
Time to put up or shut up. Or maybe I should write an article about this (with pictures of course) and post it on a few of my sites, about how some people haven't got a clue when it comes to copyright.
It isn't IBM that's making the issue of it - it was mentioned by them in passing. The real issues are:
The zOS license is tied to the hardware and workload. An emulation of the underlying hardware using TurboHercules would be unsatisfactory for disaster recovery because the underlying hardware emulation cannot make the same guarantees that real hardware makes.
In the customers eyes, IBM would still have the fall-out of licensing something that doesn't meet hardware guarantees of performance and correctness
If the data and performance are that critical, anything less than a second fall-over system running in parallel is negligent, so an emulator doesn't cut it.
there's no metric for assessing work load equivalence between a z series mainframe and a cluster of boxes running as an emulator, so again - how do you price?
The customer doesn't care about patents - they want a guarantee - from IBM - that their data is secure, available, and that IBM will be there to fix it - before it fails... they don't want to have the problems of the PC world, where Microsoft says "it's the hardware - complain to HP" and HP says "It's the driver - complain to Samsung" and Samsung says "It's the operating system - complain to Microsoft".
The patent "issue" is just FUD. And if you look at the insinuations Mueller's been making - in typical FUD fashion - the next question is "What's in it for him?"
Florian - you've accused others of being paid operatives. Who's paying you to spread this latest fud-fest?
Slashdot Mirror
That's about it ... after all, the claim:
Actually, the staff were required to monitor porn sites as part of their job, to help guard against click fraud, since porn sites were a major part of the client base.
Plus the boss had his own private collection, currently sitting on an 8 x 1TB linux box (encrypted) in his house.
Surprisingly enough, the people who run the really big porn sites (at least the ones I've met) aren't into porn. For them, it's just about making money so they can spoil their wives with vacations and clothes and jewelry and give their kids the best education.
Work with the French and the Russians and you'll see that porn is everywhere.
It's also endemic in certain industries - like automotive sales - where you have people spending 60-70 hours a week, with large periods of dead time.
Research says otherwise: http://www.springerlink.com/content/766n130226m12n24/
It makes sense that blue-eyed people of both sexes would fixate on blue eyes, since it's a very recent genetic modification (less than 10,000 years) and it does provide an indicator to paternity - but only for blue-eyed people who mate with other blue-eyed people. Since females don't have the same concerns over paternity, it makes sense that it would express itself in action only through blue-eyed males - and that's what we see. Blue-eyed males show a distinct preference for blue-eyed females.
What it doesn't explain is popular culture's ideation of blue eyes - after all, I don't see blue-eyed people buying contact lenses to change their eye color to brown. Similarly, there are a lot more brown-haired people coloring their hair blonde than the other way around.
Then again, maybe it does explain it. After all, if 3/4 of the population couldn't care less either way, but 1/4 has a strong biologically-based preference for blue eyes, the overall preference is going to be skewed towards blue eyes - and that's what we see. In less than 10,000 years, the genes for blue eyes have gone from 1 individual with a freak mutation to large portions of the population.
I just find it irrational and paradoxical that in an industry that's supposed to be based on logic, there's so much sexism.
I admit to bias - I have two daughters, and I don't want them discriminated against; I'm sure any parent wants the best for their kids.
But it is pervasive - to the point that even many women buy into it rather than rock the boat, or worse, because they actually believe it. Conditioned into having lower expectations, like other groups. I don't want that for my kids.
Of course it then extends outwards to the customers as well. You get some guys who have to "show they're boss" when they're buying stuff, just to impress their wife or girlfriend. Or they treat the receptionist like crap, or a non-person, because "they're just the receptionist."
Or just as bad, they'll assume, when dealing with a woman, that it's just a stepping-stone to dealing with "the man in charge".
Suppliers in general aren't so bad - they've learned that if you crap on the receptionist, your messages get mislaid (and many employers are now smart enough to look at your treatment of others as indicative of whether you're a "good fit". Treat the cleaning staff like crap, you won't be asked back to bid).
But there's still a long way to go ... for both sexes.
It may be able to run atop the emulator, but that's not the issue:
This is impossible.
This is self-contradictory. If you license it, in the clients' mind, you support it, despite any and all disclaimers (and the disclaimers probably wouldn't hold up in many courts anyways - after all, you received a consideration - money - you can't then waive your obligations).
You dissimulate here:
Some of them sure are suffering from something. From obsessive hand-washing (they won't even touch their mouse without 3 kleenex in between), to raging paranoia ...
Get into a code meeting and watch the pissing contests begin.
I've seen emails from guys to their girlfriends - while they're married, living with their wife and kids. I've seen worse than emails - like guys coming in and sleeping because they spent the night cheating on their pregnant wife. That's pretty harsh.
Studies show that men try to use their cell phones to impress women. Women look at that and go "You are SO lame!"
Men who assume that women are too stupid or helpless to have tried the obvious? Or refusing a woman's help because "what could she know?"
I have *never* seen a guy that doesn't have p0rn on his computer, with one exception. a 30-something virgin who thought that the boss was spying on *everything* he did (I ended up having to write his on-line dating ads to TRY to get him a social life). No telling what he had on his home machine.
I'm not saying it's limited to one sex - just that from what I've seen, there's plenty of sexist behavior.
All war criminals have been males.
The fact is that blatant sexism exists in the industry.
It was there 15 years ago when I was brought in as an outside consultant - during all-coders meetings the guys would spend all their time in pissing contests. I finally went to Isabelle after one meeting and said "look, you and I both know they're full of it, and that your work is much better than theirs. Speak up - I'll back you all the way!" She felt she couldn't because she knew the guys would resent a woman being right.
The next gig - same thing. Watch out for the prima donnas - the guys. Can't bruise their egos. One in particular - Peter - "be careful because if he feels threatened he'll stop eating and he'll mope and make life miserable for everyone again."
Another gig - "Women don't have what it takes to be real programmers." Really?
Another gig - The men outnumbered the women 7 to 1 ... the testosterone was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Men - the after-interview discussion would revolve around whether they could do the job, how their white-board presentation went, their answers to questions. Women - "nice tits - does she have a boyfriend?"
Nothing has changed. If a woman expresses herself the same way a man does, "Stop PMSing". Don't put up with the sexist remarks or unwelcome advances? "You're a lesbian." Act HALF the prima donna that a guy does, "You're just a woman - stop being such a princess." If you're a woman, you opinion counts for less, you'll be second-guessed, paid less, and if you don't accept it you're such a c*nt. And if you DO get along with your boss, everyone else will automatically assume you're having some sort of an affair and that's why you have the job you do. White-board presentations? If after a year the men still only know what you look like from the neck down, why would you expect them to suddenly put their attention elsewhere?
If you don't believe it, videotape the next meeting, then watch the tape.
It's not just IT - I was in another office, and the woman who OWNS the company was talking to a guy-friend who's known her for years. We were talking about marketing, and discussing what people first notice about other people. She believed that men noticed the smile or the eyes. He agreed - "Absolutely!". I said "Absolutely NOT!" I put my clipboard between their faces, and asked "okay, so what color are her eyes?" He guessed - wrong ... That relationship went downhill after that ...
It's not just in IT - but you'd think that people would be a bit more intelligent in IT than elsewhere. They're not.
If they said $10,000,000 to whoever comes up with the keys ...
Of course, then the drug lords would be bidding $20,000,000 ...
You'd have people embedding it in screen savers, games, apps, malware, botnets, etc.
Instead of having 3,000 people working on it, you'd have 300,000,000. To put it in perspective, that 142-year project would have been done in less than a day.
How about this: I don't need to crack YOUR password - I just need to come up with a transform that generates the same output as your password would have.
If I know that somewhere in that block of data is your email address. I can just start doing transforms at every offset - the ones that don't produce a match will quickly get eliminated (>99% will be eliminated on the first byte, ditto for subsequent bytes - think of it as a very efficient sieve of Eratosthenes tilted on edge). The ones that are left, continue. Eventually, I'll have many transforms and start positions that convert the binary data to the target phrase.
So I continue to apply the transform until either:
I don't need your pass phrase, I don't need anything more than the maximum cycle length. I won't be able to decrypt all your stuff, but your email and spreadsheet data will probably be doable in a reasonable length of time, given today's hardware.
Or don't use a dictionary.
Right - but in the wrong way. It's use is a crime against humanity. If the results of torture are suspect, the results of water-boarding are useless.
You can justify it any way you want - it still doesn't make it either right or useful.
Oh, right - I forgot - you can't read for beans. You went around accusing another slashdotter of being a felon when in fact it's YOU who is the one going around committing defamatory libel against them.
And no, I'm not arguing with you - I'm just making sure that if google or yahoo or whatever picks up this thread, they will find enough references to the fact that you are in fact slandering people by calling them felons when they aren't and that you lie a lot - for example, by falsely claiming to have registered copyrights to images when you did not. So posting anonymously isn't going to help - Michael Kristopeit is a liar who has libeled people by claiming that they were felons - and he made several false statements in an attempt to justify his lies.
Jerk.
The argument has already been presented logically. Now it's just play-time while I finish updating my systems.
I'm not arguing - I'm laying bait. You bit it with the post from the edrugtrader account.
Moron.
At least we're able now to connect the dots with your other troll accounts :-)
BTW - your copyright notice that you claim clone54321 violated - you might want to look closer at it.
Not at all. Why do you think I replied with my full email instead of my short one? If I had hit reply, it would have gone from the last-name-only email account, which is where a lot of junk mail lands - I actually had to select a different profile manually to use my personalized email account. It's all there in my slashdot profile and journal.
Of course, for you a penis is very important - after all, you're a dick. That's why you have what, 2 fans?
Michael Kristopeit: 2 fans
Me: 539 fans
Squiggleslash: 233 fans
For everyone watching: Kristopeit emailed both me and squiggy over some alleged "felony copyright infringement" by clone54321. I pointed out, in private, that he was wrong about the law (Title 17 is pretty clear), and that the best thing to do was to just ignore the whole thing and it would go away by Monday. It looks like squiggy did pretty much the same thing.
Rather than let it die down, the idiot posts one lie after another. First claiming that he has registered the copyrights (they are not - I checked), then claiming that they were registered to his business (they were not - I checked).
My only question for Kristopeit at this point is - do cmwmaw1978@comcast.net, number45@hockeyemail.com, rckristy@famvid.com, kevhag@yahoo.com, rachel@kristopeit.com, jokr56@yahoo.com, dave@kristopeit.com, trudy@kristopeit.com, tomkristopeit@hotmail.com, mrsbocchino@yahoo.com, deanna_krisopeit@msn.net, rjhansen@execpc.com, grandpabaldy@mybluelight.com, ewridt@rlinet.net, rah1994@yahoo.com, rjhansen@execpc.com, and pkristop@charter.net know that you spend your time attacking women who don't agree with you on the internet?
(and no, I waste time compiling the email list - it's a one-line curl command and a one-line cat | fgrep mailto)
Is that what my profile says? Nope.
You're such a liar.
Aw, don't you hate it when you get caught?
As for felony copyright infringement - look up USC Title 17. It's the law - not your bullshit.
I remember those - I bought one for $110 at Crazy Irving.
In the above post, you claim that YOU own the copyrights.
And yet, when I pointed out that there is no copyright registration in your name in this post you claim that your business, not you, own the copyright.
You've been caught! You call clone54321 a felony copyright violator, but it's not a felony if there's no prior copyright registration, and the image has no commercial value.
You have nothing!
Doesn't work that way, http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl107.html - same as patents have to be filed in an individual's name, and can then be assigned - copyright is a personal right. See circular 1 from the USCO.
You would have to register the copyright as the author/creator; then a subsequent transfer of copyright from the author to a business can be done, but it needs to be done in writing. SCO found that out the hard way. USCO has no record of you ever having any copyright to anything or being involved in any copyright transfer or application as a first or second party.
So unless you come up with a registration number, it's pretty obvious at this point that you lied.
Besides, you claimed that clone54321 infringed YOUR copyrights - not your business. So, were you lying then about you being the registered copyright holder, or are you lying now about your business being the registered copyright holder? You can't have it both ways (and I'm pretty sure it's neither - you never registered any copyrights).
So, like I said, it's ironic that the US Copyright Office says you are nothing.
I'm wondering how stable this person is - sending me stuff outing someone else's online identity is really stupid considering what I've been through the last month :-)
The law is clear that you need to have previously registered the work in question to have any hope of a felony copyright infringement charge, and yet ...
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Kristopeit+Michael the US Copyright Office says that Michael Kristopeit is nothing.
Sure, it could have been registered in the last few weeks, but someone who confuses a business license with copyright registration ... I have my doubts.
This is the sort of thing that tempts me to do a write-up and post it in a few places (along with pics, of course :-) as an example to others of just how whoever says "I'm gonna sue the internetz" first is invariably a crank.
Or maybe a "fark this" contest?
Copyright search for Kristopeit, Michael
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Kristopeit+Michael
Public Catalog
Copyright Catalog (1978 to present)
Your search found no results. Refer to search examples, check spelling or try another search type.
The USCO says you are nothing. Unless you can show a copyright registration, you have no grounds for a claim of felony copyright infringement against clone54321 or anyone else.
You made a claim that clone54321 is guilty of felony copyright infringement. You have no evidence of that - your typing something in all-caps doesn't make it so. You need to have registered the individual image with the US Copyright Office prior to the alleged offense.
Having a "business license to take and distribute photography" is irrelevant to the question of the registration of the individual image with the U.S. Copyright Office, as required for felony copyright infringement charges. Having a "business license" is irrelevant to the whole question of copyright. You're an idiot if you think otherwise. Read the Bern Convention.
So post the copyright registration # (as described here) for the image in question.
Time to put up or shut up. Or maybe I should write an article about this (with pictures of course) and post it on a few of my sites, about how some people haven't got a clue when it comes to copyright.
It isn't IBM that's making the issue of it - it was mentioned by them in passing. The real issues are:
The customer doesn't care about patents - they want a guarantee - from IBM - that their data is secure, available, and that IBM will be there to fix it - before it fails ... they don't want to have the problems of the PC world, where Microsoft says "it's the hardware - complain to HP" and HP says "It's the driver - complain to Samsung" and Samsung says "It's the operating system - complain to Microsoft".
The patent "issue" is just FUD. And if you look at the insinuations Mueller's been making - in typical FUD fashion - the next question is "What's in it for him?"
Florian - you've accused others of being paid operatives. Who's paying you to spread this latest fud-fest?