When I had the anonymous web proxy up on anon.xg.nu we looked at selling add space by having the proxy detect
banners on the page that it pulled down and replace it with one of our customers banners. We worked out the
programing but when we ran it by legal they put a stop to the idea. It seems that they were of the opinion that by
changing the content of a page with out the owners consent we were violating there copyright on the page. We nixed
the idea and moved on. I would love to see how this works for microsoft. I would also like to see the class action law
suit against them for violating copyrights.
Will this extend beyond internet? Will we see alpine car stereo suing alphine car audio for ripping off there name? it
is well known that alphine produced car audio amps using the name to confuse people looking for alpine equipment.
This kind of stuff has been going on for as long as there have been companies. It has been fine and legal until now!
how does the internet change it? The whole point of this is to attempt to procure some one else's customers.
Then Again I am left wondering who has the right to www.oreilly.com.... Oreilly auto parts or oreilly publishing. The
same with www.apple.com.. Apple computers or apple records..
The government and in some cases the people have overstepped there bounds. Everyone is looking for laws to fix the
problem and the solution is not more laws. It is simply applying the existing laws to the new medium.
Let me start by saying IANAL! (Although now I write the letters and my lawyer just proof reads them.)
I run an anon web site and am faced with stuff like this almost daily..
First off get a lawyer!
Second learn the law!
Let me fill you in a little.
CITE 18 USC Sec. 241 01/26/98
EXPCITE TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
TEXT Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
It would appear that the University has violated the law. I would look into it and get a lawyer to do any paperwork.
Being this is a federal law you would need to file with the federal magistrate.
There are laws that help but you need to decide what you are going to stand up for. Will you stand and defend your rights or will you back down and submit? You may loose your ME deg. or all credit gained to this point.
I personally would transfer to another school, Put the site back up, and then file charges!
Although I liked the article and the answers were good. I am left with one outstanding question.
Repeatedly Mr. Ravicher makes the following statement or one along the same lines as "The rights given to
individuals by the Constitution and Congress are mere default starting positions which can be freely transferred by
contract. As long as a contract is validly formed, the Supremacy Clause will not undo the bargain struck by the
parties. "
Rights are not given by the constitution or by the government. Rights are given by our creator and are protected by
our constitution.
He seems to think that we can sign our rights away in a binding contract! I find this hard to swallow. If that was the
case then why can I not have some poor person sign a contract provideing me governer ship of them and removing
ALL there rights in exchange I would provide them room and board? We did this 200 years ago and it was called
slavery. All rights supersede contracts or we will begin the slide into indentured servitude and slavery again.
The truth is that the rights listed in the US bill of rights are just that, RIGHTS. We are endowed by our creator with
these rights and the government nor another person may infringe on those rights. The courts can not rule our rights
away any more than the the government can remove them by repealing an amendment of the constitution. The
rights are ours and the bill of rights simply state a few rights that the founding fathers determined to be so important
that they would ban the government from infringing on them.
I got a BUD a few years ago. Added Ku to the C band, went from analog to 4dtv then added a DVB. I now get around
4900+ channels of programed TV and countless other "wild feeds". There is nothing like kicking back, channel
surfing from friday to sunday and never seeing the same channel twice.
Oh and UPN Star Trek feeds are the reason I bought the DVB receiver.
All in all i have around 1200$ invested and pay for standard service (equ. Basic Cable) It runs me around 19.95$ a
month. It relay is worth the investment. I also get a kick out of my neighbors, They get the little dish installed and yell
across the fence "When are you going to upgrade that old dish for a new mini-dish? I am getting 200 channels!" The
look on there face when I tell them the total number of channels I get is worth a mint!
" A Ponzi scheme is very similar to a pyramid except that all of the
money goes through a single location. This method of confidence
fraud is named after Charles Ponzi, a Boston, Massachusetts
"businessman" who claimed to have discovered a way to earn huge
returns on money by buying international postal reply coupons and
redeeming them in postage for more than their cost. Early
"investors" in this scheme did get their promised return on
investment, but with money that later investors were investing.
Ponzi was actually doing nothing with the money other than deriving
his own income from it, and paying latter investors' money to earlier
investors."
Is it me or does this describe the American Social Security system?
I try to stay out of this argument as I do not believe that all spam is bad. (No flames please)
But I am left with the question of "Are the headers bogus or dead?" with the venomous anti-spam people jumping
the gun on anything they do not like and calling it spam, it occurs to me that maybe the header was valid when the
person started the e-mail but by the time it got to you the account was killed. There are also the questions of the
definition of SPAM and in what way it would effect a service like mine that allows users to send anonymous
messages. You have to realize that I read complaints from people stating "This is SPAM!" when the letter is not
spam. (For example I received complaints about raciest posts in the alt.white-power news group and they were
calling them spam) I have had run-ins with providers who have expanded the definition of spam to be "Any time
some one reads or receives a message they do not want." When is it spam and when is it free speech? It is hard to
draw a line and state what is spam and what is free speech. Many will claim "If it is commercial it is spam." Although
unwanted I would not call it spam, just because the sender is a business and the mail is an add does not remove there
right to free speech. It would seem to me to be a better idea to make it a 500$ fine per letter for using as the starting
point of a letter an SMTP server that you have not been authorized to use. Or to make a 500$ a letter fine for
sending an unsolicited advertisement to a minor. Even with the laws and rules there will still be those that break the
law, send the letter, and get away with it. Just because the internet is world wide and how do you press charges for a
US crime that was committed over seas? I personally think it is a bad idea and another law we don't need.
"How frustrated am I that my parent/sibling/spouse is unable to open an email attachment?"
It seems to me the world would be safer if they did not open the attachment.. After all the time I spent working with the "I Love You" Virus and others.;)
It seems that the government has decided that although the constitution of the US holds the rights of an individual to be god given, god only gave those rights to americans. Everyone else is fair game. This truly bothers be! In the past the government got around this by creating a corporation to do the intelligence gathering (CIA, OSS, ETC.) Now they wish to do it them selves? What's next, "Sir your computer was on the internet and as you may not be aware, Computers on the net are open to search. The Founding fathers did not have computers when they wrote the constitution and could not have foreseen them. There for there is no right to be secure in your computer."
Next you know they will outlaw the constitution! OOPS they did that already. The constitution was written on himp paper and as most are aware himp is ILLEGAL in the United states.
We are the ones that have been screwed here. When copyright was set up it was an agreement between the people
and the artist. It was done to promote the availability of works to the public. The agreement was that the author
would release the work to the public, In return for which the government would guarantee the authors right to profit
from the work for a LIMITED time by giving the author the sole rights to publish the work. By releasing there work
to the public there were fair uses which anyone could exercise on the work.
We are now being told that due to a change in the media and distribution of a work that the original author now has
more rights.
For example, I own a copy of "The Beach Boys Greatest Hits Vol. 1" Now I can make a copy of this CD on tape,
MP3, DVD, or wire recording by fair use, BUT I can not download a copy in mp3 format because that is WRONG!
But wait it gets worse with the advent of SDMI and CSS they are now taking the fair use away from us! They are now
giving them self the right to tell us (The Public) How, When, and Where we can enjoy there work! As well as
removing our right to use portions of the work in a derivative work and to make backup copies of the work for
personal use!
Oh ya we are the bad guys here because we want to exercise out fair use rights! I am sorry but if the RIAA, MPAA,
etc continue to break the social copyright agreement then I will continue to break my side of it as well.
Remember, Copyright was to be for a LIMITED time. There are works that were made before I was borne that will
still be copyrighted long after I am dead. To me this is not a LIMITED time!
>How long before theres an Aibo with a live dog's
>brain?
Oh I can see this!
Scientists have added a live dog brain into a computer robot and have linked this with the FBI database. They now have a robot that can Identify any person by sniffing there A** and can then pull up a criminal record on that person. All police stations will be issued the new B*TT sniffing ID robots shortly.
I am willing to bet that the drug issue falls back to money. The dealers are paying the political establishment to keep it illigal because if it does become legal the bottom falls out of the market and the price drops makeing it less profitable!
Slashdot Mirror
When I had the anonymous web proxy up on anon.xg.nu we looked at selling add space by having the proxy detect banners on the page that it pulled down and replace it with one of our customers banners. We worked out the programing but when we ran it by legal they put a stop to the idea. It seems that they were of the opinion that by changing the content of a page with out the owners consent we were violating there copyright on the page. We nixed the idea and moved on. I would love to see how this works for microsoft. I would also like to see the class action law suit against them for violating copyrights.
Will this extend beyond internet? Will we see alpine car stereo suing alphine car audio for ripping off there name? it
is well known that alphine produced car audio amps using the name to confuse people looking for alpine equipment.
This kind of stuff has been going on for as long as there have been companies. It has been fine and legal until now!
how does the internet change it? The whole point of this is to attempt to procure some one else's customers.
alpine --> alphine (Car Audio)
camel --> Kamel (Smokes)
Kool --> Cool (Smokes)
Then Again I am left wondering who has the right to www.oreilly.com.... Oreilly auto parts or oreilly publishing. The
same with www.apple.com.. Apple computers or apple records..
The government and in some cases the people have overstepped there bounds. Everyone is looking for laws to fix the
problem and the solution is not more laws. It is simply applying the existing laws to the new medium.
Let me start by saying IANAL! (Although now I write the letters and my lawyer just proof reads them.)
I run an anon web site and am faced with stuff like this almost daily..
First off get a lawyer!
Second learn the law!
Let me fill you in a little.
CITE 18 USC Sec. 241 01/26/98
EXPCITE TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
TEXT Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
It would appear that the University has violated the law. I would look into it and get a lawyer to do any paperwork.
Being this is a federal law you would need to file with the federal magistrate.
There are laws that help but you need to decide what you are going to stand up for. Will you stand and defend your rights or will you back down and submit? You may loose your ME deg. or all credit gained to this point.
I personally would transfer to another school, Put the site back up, and then file charges!
Although I liked the article and the answers were good. I am left with one outstanding question.
Repeatedly Mr. Ravicher makes the following statement or one along the same lines as "The rights given to
individuals by the Constitution and Congress are mere default starting positions which can be freely transferred by
contract. As long as a contract is validly formed, the Supremacy Clause will not undo the bargain struck by the
parties. "
Rights are not given by the constitution or by the government. Rights are given by our creator and are protected by
our constitution.
He seems to think that we can sign our rights away in a binding contract! I find this hard to swallow. If that was the
case then why can I not have some poor person sign a contract provideing me governer ship of them and removing
ALL there rights in exchange I would provide them room and board? We did this 200 years ago and it was called
slavery. All rights supersede contracts or we will begin the slide into indentured servitude and slavery again.
The truth is that the rights listed in the US bill of rights are just that, RIGHTS. We are endowed by our creator with
these rights and the government nor another person may infringe on those rights. The courts can not rule our rights
away any more than the the government can remove them by repealing an amendment of the constitution. The
rights are ours and the bill of rights simply state a few rights that the founding fathers determined to be so important
that they would ban the government from infringing on them.
I got a BUD a few years ago. Added Ku to the C band, went from analog to 4dtv then added a DVB. I now get around
4900+ channels of programed TV and countless other "wild feeds". There is nothing like kicking back, channel
surfing from friday to sunday and never seeing the same channel twice.
Oh and UPN Star Trek feeds are the reason I bought the DVB receiver.
All in all i have around 1200$ invested and pay for standard service (equ. Basic Cable) It runs me around 19.95$ a
month. It relay is worth the investment. I also get a kick out of my neighbors, They get the little dish installed and yell
across the fence "When are you going to upgrade that old dish for a new mini-dish? I am getting 200 channels!" The
look on there face when I tell them the total number of channels I get is worth a mint!
All in all it is worth the investment!
The RFC states, as a description of a Ponzi.
" A Ponzi scheme is very similar to a pyramid except that all of the
money goes through a single location. This method of confidence
fraud is named after Charles Ponzi, a Boston, Massachusetts
"businessman" who claimed to have discovered a way to earn huge
returns on money by buying international postal reply coupons and
redeeming them in postage for more than their cost. Early
"investors" in this scheme did get their promised return on
investment, but with money that later investors were investing.
Ponzi was actually doing nothing with the money other than deriving
his own income from it, and paying latter investors' money to earlier
investors."
Is it me or does this describe the American Social Security system?
I try to stay out of this argument as I do not believe that all spam is bad. (No flames please)
But I am left with the question of "Are the headers bogus or dead?" with the venomous anti-spam people jumping
the gun on anything they do not like and calling it spam, it occurs to me that maybe the header was valid when the
person started the e-mail but by the time it got to you the account was killed. There are also the questions of the
definition of SPAM and in what way it would effect a service like mine that allows users to send anonymous
messages. You have to realize that I read complaints from people stating "This is SPAM!" when the letter is not
spam. (For example I received complaints about raciest posts in the alt.white-power news group and they were
calling them spam) I have had run-ins with providers who have expanded the definition of spam to be "Any time
some one reads or receives a message they do not want." When is it spam and when is it free speech? It is hard to
draw a line and state what is spam and what is free speech. Many will claim "If it is commercial it is spam." Although
unwanted I would not call it spam, just because the sender is a business and the mail is an add does not remove there
right to free speech. It would seem to me to be a better idea to make it a 500$ fine per letter for using as the starting
point of a letter an SMTP server that you have not been authorized to use. Or to make a 500$ a letter fine for
sending an unsolicited advertisement to a minor. Even with the laws and rules there will still be those that break the
law, send the letter, and get away with it. Just because the internet is world wide and how do you press charges for a
US crime that was committed over seas? I personally think it is a bad idea and another law we don't need.
To Quote the site.
;)
"How frustrated am I that my parent/sibling/spouse is unable to open an email attachment?"
It seems to me the world would be safer if they did not open the attachment.. After all the time I spent working with the "I Love You" Virus and others.
I liked the site.
"Ohh look, There is a rabbit! Ill shoot it! (Bang)
;)
OOPS sorry that was my foot..."
I was wondering how long it would be before they shot them selves in the foot with it..
It seems that the government has decided that although the constitution of the US holds the rights of an individual to be god given, god only gave those rights to americans. Everyone else is fair game. This truly bothers be! In the past the government got around this by creating a corporation to do the intelligence gathering (CIA, OSS, ETC.) Now they wish to do it them selves? What's next, "Sir your computer was on the internet and as you may not be aware, Computers on the net are open to search. The Founding fathers did not have computers when they wrote the constitution and could not have foreseen them. There for there is no right to be secure in your computer."
Next you know they will outlaw the constitution! OOPS they did that already. The constitution was written on himp paper and as most are aware himp is ILLEGAL in the United states.
We are the ones that have been screwed here. When copyright was set up it was an agreement between the people
and the artist. It was done to promote the availability of works to the public. The agreement was that the author
would release the work to the public, In return for which the government would guarantee the authors right to profit
from the work for a LIMITED time by giving the author the sole rights to publish the work. By releasing there work
to the public there were fair uses which anyone could exercise on the work.
We are now being told that due to a change in the media and distribution of a work that the original author now has
more rights.
For example, I own a copy of "The Beach Boys Greatest Hits Vol. 1" Now I can make a copy of this CD on tape,
MP3, DVD, or wire recording by fair use, BUT I can not download a copy in mp3 format because that is WRONG!
But wait it gets worse with the advent of SDMI and CSS they are now taking the fair use away from us! They are now
giving them self the right to tell us (The Public) How, When, and Where we can enjoy there work! As well as
removing our right to use portions of the work in a derivative work and to make backup copies of the work for
personal use!
Oh ya we are the bad guys here because we want to exercise out fair use rights! I am sorry but if the RIAA, MPAA,
etc continue to break the social copyright agreement then I will continue to break my side of it as well.
Remember, Copyright was to be for a LIMITED time. There are works that were made before I was borne that will
still be copyrighted long after I am dead. To me this is not a LIMITED time!
>How long before theres an Aibo with a live dog's
>brain?
Oh I can see this!
Scientists have added a live dog brain into a computer robot and have linked this with the FBI database. They now have a robot that can Identify any person by sniffing there A** and can then pull up a criminal record on that person. All police stations will be issued the new B*TT sniffing ID robots shortly.
I am willing to bet that the drug issue falls back to money. The dealers are paying the political establishment to keep it illigal because if it does become legal the bottom falls out of the market and the price drops makeing it less profitable!
Money makes the world go round!