There are several important legal issues to be aware of in this case:
One, the distinction between Civil and Criminal law, and
Two, the distinction between Statutory and Common law, and
Three, the distinction between Federal and State law.
As most people haven't the foggiest idea what the first four terms mean, and as most Political Scientists and Lawyers exist solely to explain the requirements of a Soverign's wishes upon his subjects, these terms have become muddled into a duality in which Statutory and Criminal are almost synonymous and Civil and Common are equally synonymous. This is extremely confusing, as the terms have almost nothing to do with each other.
Why has this happened? In the Constitution, the United States was created as a government with sole jurisdiction over specific areas, and limited jurisdiction over acts committed between and among the several States. This meant that the Federal government was not given free reign to create laws that prohibit acts solely within a State or that do not fall under the categories of Interstate Commerce, Treason, etc., as in a Democracy.
What do the terms actually mean? I have almost no idea. Well, I have some idea. I'll try to explain. Statutory refers to laws that are formally codified and obeyed by a loose prior agreement, as opposed to Common law, in which laws are not written, but understood, and everyone is held subject to them, such as the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. It is generally accepted that Statutory laws are in most ways superior to Common laws, although this may not be the case. Civil laws are similar to Statutory laws in that they are predicated upon some form of prior agreement to be enforced, specifically the formation of a Corporation for the means of conducting commerce. Civil law is like a club in which your business can join, or not, and it gets certain benefits, but it is expected to play by the rules. Criminal laws are not predicated upon prior agreement, but upon the commission of some overt act, thereby violating the public sphere and affecting others (presumably in a negatory fashion).
Whereas, States can create both Civil and Criminal laws in Statutory and Common form, the US was limited to creating Statutory laws only that were either 1) Criminal or Civil within areas of sole jurisdiction, or 2) Civil only (commercial) between and among the several states, or 3) Criminal in very limited scope within the states, with treason almost necessitating commiting acts within the sole jurisdiction of the US.
The fact is that this law is a Federal Civil Statute, because the Federal government is not granted jurisdiction to make Criminal Statutes, except in places of its sole jurisdiction (eg. D.C., ports, forts, etc.). A hundred years ago, this would have meant that said Statute is not enforcable against a person unless he is:
1) engaged in interstate commerce, commerce NOT being defined as anything that crosses State lines. Commerce very simply requires the passing of goods or services from one place to another in exchange for other goods and services, or money; hence the Civil requirement.
AND,
2) a Citizen of the United States, not to be confused with a citizen or resident of any of the several States; hence the Statutory requirement.
Whoever said that an individual would not be targeted by this law is technically correct, yet with the loose language and obvious misunderstanding of their charge by our lawmakers, the Statute seems to affect everyone.
A Corporation, however, is not an individual. It is quite the opposite. It does not retain rights from the government, in fact it's entire existence is dependent upon the government, State or Federal. Thus, Corporations are the true subjects of Civil law. Yet the Federal government still does not gain jurisdiction until the actions in question cross state lines. Intrastate commerce is still the sole jurisdiction of the States.
This is the sad effect of 70 years of liberal democracy. People (lawmakers, even) think the United States is a Democracy. People think the Interstate Commerce Clause grants the United States free reign over citizens of the States of the Union. People think they are subject to Federal laws because they buy a Twinkie at the local 7-11 that came from outside their State. Judges and lawmakers also seem to think that a person giving something away (not really even something, but speech: data) for free is commerce, simply because it could maybe be worth something to someone. Napster was the beginning of the end.
I think the best evidence of the timeframe of broadband acceptance was the proliferation of "free pc" deals and "free dialup" in the last year, and the sudden disappearance of all of these schemes from the market. The large dial-up companies had already decimated the local ISP's, but quickly realized that their victory might have been in vain because of broadband technologies on the horizon threatening to take the spoils they were planning to use paying their war-debts. Their marketing guys decided that signing people up for three-year contracts would secure a healthy profit on their investments, even if it meant huge rebates. They figured that three years of a steady profit was better than betting against DSL/cable. Even AOL, who tried to mask their purchase of Time/Warner as "buying content", made an overt move towards broadband cable providers. After they saw the huge response these deals attracted, they figured they could hold out a few years more, and cancelled them. In the end, though, I think the national ISPs who offered rebates just picked up people who wouldn't have gotten internet at all otherwise, akin to Wal-Mart force-selling crap to people by placing it on the end of the aisle with big signs. Neglecting the technical issues of broadband, I give it five more years tops. After people spend three years downloading ever-increasing websites at 56k they are more than happy to shell out another $20 a month for broadband. Besides, I know of no one who, after using the internet (especially broadband) hasn't become addicted.
This seems to be right. That was the first thing I noticed when I upgraded to 2.4 from 2.2.16: programs load about 100 times faster. With all the bugs already in RH7 (linuxconf can't even set the damn default gateway correctly; even Windows can consistently get this right;), I wonder why they didn't just go ahead and throw in 2.4 as the default. As for the researchers, these people did some interesting work, but they came up with the wrong conclusions. 2.4 is much, much faster than 2.2, precisely for this reason. It makes for a much better desktop system, if maybe slightly slower for a constantly-running machine.
This "better than DVD" thing you mention already exists; It's called AVI. Realistically, though, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference between an 8 gigabyte DVD and a 2 terabyte AVI file, especially on your (I'm sure this is wrong, but approx.) 352x240 television. Even if there were something (recognizably) better than DVD, what would you watch it on, your 3D holographic imager or your.17 dot-pitch lcd screen? Either way, you wouldn't need much more storage space than hard drives have nowadays. The real problem with high data rate video isn't storage, it's conversion into a form we can watch. Maybe when you invent a direct-to-spinal-cord adaptor you can watch 3D videos in full resolution that take up a terabyte, but probably processors will be much faster by then and you'll more likely store your whole collection of such videos on that little glass cube.
Yes. You are right. It is easier to be ignorant; And I'm sure that if you type "word processor" into the IE address bar you will be taken directly to the Microsoft Word website. Maybe in the future Microsoft will have developed a robotic arm that comes out of your computer, extracts a credit card from your wallet, and just buys Microsoft products for you, no thought needed. You obviously have no clue as to what/. is about, otherwise you wouldn't have used a Microsoft "user-friendly" "feature" as an example of how great the internet will be when Bill Gates makes all of our decisions for us. Slashdot is too nerdy for you. Please use the "Back" feature of your Microsoft browser to return to the pre-installed Microsoft homepage and never return to SlashDot again. Better yet, use the CTRL-ALT-DEL feature instead. Using a computer probably requires too much thought for you.
I admit. I did it. I grew up using Windows. When I first installed RedHat, I clicked on "expert mode". Know why? See sentence #3. I (and every other halfway intelligent person who has tried to use Windows) have been engrained with the notion that in order to get Windows to do anything close to I want it to do (most of the time just to prevent it from making some idiotic "default" setting that will cause me to re-install the whole OS sometime later), I have to take every opportunity to set options myself. When I first got Win 95, I had clicked on every option within a week. Don't get me wrong. Windows is wonderful. I'm using it right now. Later, when it crashes, I can just reboot it and hope none of my files are corrupted. When they do become corrupted, I can just re-install Windows. When I get done doing that for the twelve computers on the network I administer, I can kill myself. No, wait, that's after one of our users asks me how to copy a file in Window's "idiot-proof" interface. Believe me, I would put Linux on everything if I didn't have to listen to fifteen people tell me about how they saw a commercial for Microsoft (Insert name of formerly third-party software application recently implemented by Microsoft here) and how they think it looks "cooler" or "better" than whatever alternative exists for Linux; because Linux sucks and its for nerds. Well, Windows sucks and its for idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
There are several important legal issues to be aware of in this case:
One, the distinction between Civil and Criminal law, and
Two, the distinction between Statutory and Common law, and
Three, the distinction between Federal and State law.
As most people haven't the foggiest idea what the first four terms mean, and as most Political Scientists and Lawyers exist solely to explain the requirements of a Soverign's wishes upon his subjects, these terms have become muddled into a duality in which Statutory and Criminal are almost synonymous and Civil and Common are equally synonymous. This is extremely confusing, as the terms have almost nothing to do with each other.
Why has this happened? In the Constitution, the United States was created as a government with sole jurisdiction over specific areas, and limited jurisdiction over acts committed between and among the several States. This meant that the Federal government was not given free reign to create laws that prohibit acts solely within a State or that do not fall under the categories of Interstate Commerce, Treason, etc., as in a Democracy.
What do the terms actually mean? I have almost no idea. Well, I have some idea. I'll try to explain. Statutory refers to laws that are formally codified and obeyed by a loose prior agreement, as opposed to Common law, in which laws are not written, but understood, and everyone is held subject to them, such as the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. It is generally accepted that Statutory laws are in most ways superior to Common laws, although this may not be the case. Civil laws are similar to Statutory laws in that they are predicated upon some form of prior agreement to be enforced, specifically the formation of a Corporation for the means of conducting commerce. Civil law is like a club in which your business can join, or not, and it gets certain benefits, but it is expected to play by the rules. Criminal laws are not predicated upon prior agreement, but upon the commission of some overt act, thereby violating the public sphere and affecting others (presumably in a negatory fashion).
Whereas, States can create both Civil and Criminal laws in Statutory and Common form, the US was limited to creating Statutory laws only that were either 1) Criminal or Civil within areas of sole jurisdiction, or 2) Civil only (commercial) between and among the several states, or 3) Criminal in very limited scope within the states, with treason almost necessitating commiting acts within the sole jurisdiction of the US.
The fact is that this law is a Federal Civil Statute, because the Federal government is not granted jurisdiction to make Criminal Statutes, except in places of its sole jurisdiction (eg. D.C., ports, forts, etc.). A hundred years ago, this would have meant that said Statute is not enforcable against a person unless he is:
1) engaged in interstate commerce, commerce NOT being defined as anything that crosses State lines. Commerce very simply requires the passing of goods or services from one place to another in exchange for other goods and services, or money; hence the Civil requirement.
AND,
2) a Citizen of the United States, not to be confused with a citizen or resident of any of the several States; hence the Statutory requirement.
Whoever said that an individual would not be targeted by this law is technically correct, yet with the loose language and obvious misunderstanding of their charge by our lawmakers, the Statute seems to affect everyone.
A Corporation, however, is not an individual. It is quite the opposite. It does not retain rights from the government, in fact it's entire existence is dependent upon the government, State or Federal. Thus, Corporations are the true subjects of Civil law. Yet the Federal government still does not gain jurisdiction until the actions in question cross state lines. Intrastate commerce is still the sole jurisdiction of the States.
This is the sad effect of 70 years of liberal democracy. People (lawmakers, even) think the United States is a Democracy. People think the Interstate Commerce Clause grants the United States free reign over citizens of the States of the Union. People think they are subject to Federal laws because they buy a Twinkie at the local 7-11 that came from outside their State. Judges and lawmakers also seem to think that a person giving something away (not really even something, but speech: data) for free is commerce, simply because it could maybe be worth something to someone. Napster was the beginning of the end.
I think the best evidence of the timeframe of broadband acceptance was the proliferation of "free pc" deals and "free dialup" in the last year, and the sudden disappearance of all of these schemes from the market. The large dial-up companies had already decimated the local ISP's, but quickly realized that their victory might have been in vain because of broadband technologies on the horizon threatening to take the spoils they were planning to use paying their war-debts. Their marketing guys decided that signing people up for three-year contracts would secure a healthy profit on their investments, even if it meant huge rebates. They figured that three years of a steady profit was better than betting against DSL/cable. Even AOL, who tried to mask their purchase of Time/Warner as "buying content", made an overt move towards broadband cable providers. After they saw the huge response these deals attracted, they figured they could hold out a few years more, and cancelled them. In the end, though, I think the national ISPs who offered rebates just picked up people who wouldn't have gotten internet at all otherwise, akin to Wal-Mart force-selling crap to people by placing it on the end of the aisle with big signs. Neglecting the technical issues of broadband, I give it five more years tops. After people spend three years downloading ever-increasing websites at 56k they are more than happy to shell out another $20 a month for broadband. Besides, I know of no one who, after using the internet (especially broadband) hasn't become addicted.
This seems to be right. That was the first thing I noticed when I upgraded to 2.4 from 2.2.16: programs load about 100 times faster. With all the bugs already in RH7 (linuxconf can't even set the damn default gateway correctly; even Windows can consistently get this right;), I wonder why they didn't just go ahead and throw in 2.4 as the default. As for the researchers, these people did some interesting work, but they came up with the wrong conclusions. 2.4 is much, much faster than 2.2, precisely for this reason. It makes for a much better desktop system, if maybe slightly slower for a constantly-running machine.
This "better than DVD" thing you mention already exists; It's called AVI. Realistically, though, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference between an 8 gigabyte DVD and a 2 terabyte AVI file, especially on your (I'm sure this is wrong, but approx.) 352x240 television. Even if there were something (recognizably) better than DVD, what would you watch it on, your 3D holographic imager or your .17 dot-pitch lcd screen? Either way, you wouldn't need much more storage space than hard drives have nowadays. The real problem with high data rate video isn't storage, it's conversion into a form we can watch. Maybe when you invent a direct-to-spinal-cord adaptor you can watch 3D videos in full resolution that take up a terabyte, but probably processors will be much faster by then and you'll more likely store your whole collection of such videos on that little glass cube.
Yes. You are right. It is easier to be ignorant; And I'm sure that if you type "word processor" into the IE address bar you will be taken directly to the Microsoft Word website. Maybe in the future Microsoft will have developed a robotic arm that comes out of your computer, extracts a credit card from your wallet, and just buys Microsoft products for you, no thought needed. You obviously have no clue as to what /. is about, otherwise you wouldn't have used a Microsoft "user-friendly" "feature" as an example of how great the internet will be when Bill Gates makes all of our decisions for us. Slashdot is too nerdy for you. Please use the "Back" feature of your Microsoft browser to return to the pre-installed Microsoft homepage and never return to SlashDot again. Better yet, use the CTRL-ALT-DEL feature instead. Using a computer probably requires too much thought for you.
Not really "open" hardware either, since it's basically just two ready-made devices wired together... I expect more from /.
I admit. I did it. I grew up using Windows. When I first installed RedHat, I clicked on "expert mode". Know why? See sentence #3. I (and every other halfway intelligent person who has tried to use Windows) have been engrained with the notion that in order to get Windows to do anything close to I want it to do (most of the time just to prevent it from making some idiotic "default" setting that will cause me to re-install the whole OS sometime later), I have to take every opportunity to set options myself. When I first got Win 95, I had clicked on every option within a week. Don't get me wrong. Windows is wonderful. I'm using it right now. Later, when it crashes, I can just reboot it and hope none of my files are corrupted. When they do become corrupted, I can just re-install Windows. When I get done doing that for the twelve computers on the network I administer, I can kill myself. No, wait, that's after one of our users asks me how to copy a file in Window's "idiot-proof" interface. Believe me, I would put Linux on everything if I didn't have to listen to fifteen people tell me about how they saw a commercial for Microsoft (Insert name of formerly third-party software application recently implemented by Microsoft here) and how they think it looks "cooler" or "better" than whatever alternative exists for Linux; because Linux sucks and its for nerds. Well, Windows sucks and its for idiots.