Yes of course it's illegal to traffic stolen and counterfeit goods, but WTF does that have to do with the OP's claim that "[i]t's legal to jailbreak the phone you own and use, it's just illegal to unlock and sell in bulk."
Again you fail reading comprehension. As per your link:
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network. (Emphasis mine)
As long as he owned the program to unlock the phones, it's exempt. There's nothing in there about owning the phone whatsoever, although presumably the seller would also own the phone while it's in his possession, unless you think there was some sort of consignment-based arrangement, which seems unlikely. In any case, it's irrelevant whether or not he owned the phones.
(Sorry to double post; I should have read his link before posting my first reply and consolidated the rebuttal.)
I did in fact RTFA, and it doesn't say anything about that. There's a similar comment in TFA, but why is a comment on that page any more reliable than a comment on this one? Oh right, it's not.
Yes and no. Just like you can't charge someone for committing a crime before it was a crime, you can't continue to incarcerate someone for a crime that is no longer a crime. Depending on the why the law is no longer applicable, they may even be entitled to damages for wrongful imprisonment (and of course, anyone can try to sue the state for just about anything).
All of this assumes that they haven't done anything in jail that's earned them a longer sentence, which they'd likely still have to serve, as messed up as that is. "True, you shouldn't have been here in the first place, but since you were, and you were involved in a fight that you didn't start, you still have 2 more years."
You would be unsurprised then, if you had read the fine article.
The judge on Wednesday even backtracked on an earlier ruling that had prohibited Crippen, 28, from raising a "fair use" defense at trial.
Crippen was hoping to argue to jurors that it was legal to hack the consoles because the modification had non-infringing purposes, like allowing the machines to run homebrew software, or permitting limited fair use of copyright material such as backup copies of video games.
While the judge ruled last week that such a defense was not permitted by the DMCA, he seemingly changed course during his speech.
"The only way to be able to play copied games is to circumvent the technology," Gutierrez said. "How about backup games and the homebrewed?"
Of course, while I'm delighted that "the homebrewed" will no doubt be entering the online vernacular in short order, I still want to cringe that they actually referred to it as "homebrew" in a court of law. How about "independent software" or "user content" or basically anything other than slang, which only undermines the legitimacy of the claim.
"Your honor, defense moves that skiddley be bop da booba dee doo!"
One of the biggest problems with the major faiths -- and I'm not wholesale against religion by any means -- is that they don't allow for rational doubt, and they claim absolute authority and correctness. If you're wondering whether God really exists despite the fact that none of your prayers have ever been answered, then the problem is that you're thinking too much instead of just being faithful. The abandonment of rational thought isn't conducive to a healthy outlook on life, no matter how good it might feel to be part of a "larger plan." I think religion and society would be much better served if religion admitted that it was a hypothesis, and nothing more. We *think* our beliefs are true and we have reasons that are significant to us, but we're not certain, can't be certain, and we won't hold it against you if you disagree.
I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to take comfort in the possibility of a higher power, but let's not abandon rational thought in the process. Granted, hope might be a slightly irrational emotion at times, but it's one thing to have hope, and another to be righteous in your non-disprovable beliefs. The latter should not be encouraged, and I would go so far as to say that encouraging it is irresponsible.
Hmm, I'd be surprised if they don't get sued by Google for confusingly similar naming with YouTube, though perhaps your IP laws aren't as onerous as ours.
I sort of think the old west was a nirvana compared to present day. Laws and the enforcement thereof were pretty much relegated to actual crimes like robbery, theft, and murder, and while enforcement certainly left something to be desired, the upside of focusing on real crime meant real freedom to pursue whatever interested you outside of that. Of course, nobody remembers it like that; it's all "wild west" this, untamed wilderness that, where horrible things could happen -- as if horrible things can't and don't happen today. I suspect that similar things will happen to the internet, where people will extol the benefits of tighter control (less spam, phishing, and malware... maybe) while forgetting entirely the freedoms that went along with that lack of strict regulation and seemingly omnipotent enforcement.
I don't exactly know the details, nor does anyone except the three people involved, but reports are that they asked him to stop after *protection* was removed from the equation, either accidentally or willfully.
Now I agree that regrets should not be treated in any way the same as rape, but busting a nut in someone without consent, in fact with their alleged dissent is pushing right up against the definition of rape by most rational standards. Just because I agreed to jump out of a plane doesn't mean I'll do it without a parachute. If I died due to equipment failure, that's one thing, but intentional disregard for my wishes, pushing me out of the plane without a chute just because I agreed to jump back when we were on the ground and you said you had parachutes, that's not just being an asshole; that's murder.
Again, I don't know what really went down, but if that's indeed what happened, then I have zero sympathy for him. None.
I would really like to know why I should be made to pay for wrongs that I had nothing to do with.
Why should you enjoy advantages that you had nothing to do with creating? Why should you pay the debt accrued by previous generations? Or pay out Social Security to the current retirees? Because we live in a society, that's why. It's the whole fucking point of cooperating rather than taking an "every man for himself" approach -- so we all have a decent quality of life, which in turn provides stability and prosperity for as many people as possible. When one group of people has been systemically oppressed, then yes, it's our duty to get them back on even footing, or some semblance thereof.
As for the rest of your argument, if you knew anyone who's lived on or grown up in a reservation, you'd know that most people aren't living in what most of us would consider livable conditions, let alone the lap of luxury. The casinos are a by-product of semi-sovereignty; similar to statehood, but with far fewer rights. At any rate, the reservations can pass their own laws just as the Great State of California can pass its laws. It's not exactly the native Americans' fault that the government that *you* established is displeasing to you. And if you take no credit for your own government, then certainly native Americans deserve even less. New Mexico, for example, overtly disallowed voting for native Americans as recently as 1961. And if being ruled by a government which was imposed upon you and in which you have no representation isn't reason enough for reparations, then I don't know what the fuck is.
Which ignores the fact that Comcast provides asymmetrical connections to 95%+ (100%?) of their customers. Perhaps not coincidentally, the downstream to upstream ratio is 5:1 (at least mine is).
Worse than useless, they make them counterproductive. Your first choice might be candidate X, and your second choice candidate Y, but voting for candidate X can (and usually does) result in your LEAST favorite, candidate Z, actually winning.
I concede that your distinction may be valid, but WikiLeaks isn't exactly hurting for attention in the first place. I admit I'm a cynic, but it seems to me that the only agenda served by Assange doing a talk-show is that of satisfying a personal desire for publicity and/or validation. Now you may be right that he's of the mind that drawing (more) attention to the issue at any price is worthwhile, but I think it's far easier to argue against a personal desire for attention when one avoids attention in the first place. PJ/Pamela Jones of Groklaw is a perfect example, refusing nearly all interviews, particularly televised, and letting her work speak for itself. If you are correct about Assange's motivations, then I would characterize his recent time in the spotlight as, at best, a miscalculated approach. Rather than drawing more attention to the issue(s), it only put more attention on him, as indicated by the fact that he's part of the discussion right now, along with the recent attention his personal life has received. Now it's possible his personal life would have been dragged into the spotlight regardless of whether or not he was complicit, but the fact that he was complicit doesn't help.
Well that, and (until recently) corporations didn't risk actual penalties like jail time by bending/breaking the law. You and me, well that's a different story.
No they don't. The *displays* use less power, yes, but the CPUs (and the system taken as a whole) use much, much more than they used to. There's a reason you don't see 250W power supplies anymore.
As long as the attack comes in the form of battery by other people directly, and not, say, attack by the flu, or cancer, or AIDS. Those people can just suck it up and buy healthcare that's designed not to help them, but to turn a profit, amirite?
NOFORN is separate from other classification markings, and it's basically a formality. I don't know the history of the marking, but suffice it to say that it has little to no bearing on how documents themselves are handled, even with regards to disclosure to foreign entities. Most of the manuals for military equipment that we sell to foreign nations, for example, are marked NOFORN, even if they're otherwise unclassified. It's just one of those bureaucratic things that someone decides to add one day out of, no doubt, politically motivated "common sense." It might help somewhat, in some circumstances, when it's regarded, but for the most part it's just a semi-standard marking that nobody pays much attention to. It's not like everyone in government has a badge that says "I'm a foreign national!" (and there are many), so it's hardly enforceable without direct assistance from the people it's designed to "protect" against. If I had to guess, I'd say it originated during WWII or the Cold War, and there's simply no political motivation to discontinue its use.
In TFA, he mentions that he also sells through Amazon using a business name he won't disclose. To be fair, he says he offers much better service through Amazon because they have a low threshold for dissatisfied customers, but personally I don't want to risk giving him my money, which now rules out Amazon.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes of course it's illegal to traffic stolen and counterfeit goods, but WTF does that have to do with the OP's claim that "[i]t's legal to jailbreak the phone you own and use, it's just illegal to unlock and sell in bulk."
I have yet to see a source for this claim.
Again you fail reading comprehension. As per your link:
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network. (Emphasis mine)
As long as he owned the program to unlock the phones, it's exempt. There's nothing in there about owning the phone whatsoever, although presumably the seller would also own the phone while it's in his possession, unless you think there was some sort of consignment-based arrangement, which seems unlikely. In any case, it's irrelevant whether or not he owned the phones.
(Sorry to double post; I should have read his link before posting my first reply and consolidated the rebuttal.)
I did in fact RTFA, and it doesn't say anything about that. There's a similar comment in TFA, but why is a comment on that page any more reliable than a comment on this one? Oh right, it's not.
Yes and no. Just like you can't charge someone for committing a crime before it was a crime, you can't continue to incarcerate someone for a crime that is no longer a crime. Depending on the why the law is no longer applicable, they may even be entitled to damages for wrongful imprisonment (and of course, anyone can try to sue the state for just about anything).
All of this assumes that they haven't done anything in jail that's earned them a longer sentence, which they'd likely still have to serve, as messed up as that is. "True, you shouldn't have been here in the first place, but since you were, and you were involved in a fight that you didn't start, you still have 2 more years."
[citation needed]
Not if half the world's population moves to the Sahara.
You would be unsurprised then, if you had read the fine article.
The judge on Wednesday even backtracked on an earlier ruling that had prohibited Crippen, 28, from raising a "fair use" defense at trial.
Crippen was hoping to argue to jurors that it was legal to hack the consoles because the modification had non-infringing purposes, like allowing the machines to run homebrew software, or permitting limited fair use of copyright material such as backup copies of video games.
While the judge ruled last week that such a defense was not permitted by the DMCA, he seemingly changed course during his speech.
"The only way to be able to play copied games is to circumvent the technology," Gutierrez said. "How about backup games and the homebrewed?"
Of course, while I'm delighted that "the homebrewed" will no doubt be entering the online vernacular in short order, I still want to cringe that they actually referred to it as "homebrew" in a court of law. How about "independent software" or "user content" or basically anything other than slang, which only undermines the legitimacy of the claim.
"Your honor, defense moves that skiddley be bop da booba dee doo!"
"Excuse me?"
"Skeet skeet skeet!"
One of the biggest problems with the major faiths -- and I'm not wholesale against religion by any means -- is that they don't allow for rational doubt, and they claim absolute authority and correctness. If you're wondering whether God really exists despite the fact that none of your prayers have ever been answered, then the problem is that you're thinking too much instead of just being faithful. The abandonment of rational thought isn't conducive to a healthy outlook on life, no matter how good it might feel to be part of a "larger plan." I think religion and society would be much better served if religion admitted that it was a hypothesis, and nothing more. We *think* our beliefs are true and we have reasons that are significant to us, but we're not certain, can't be certain, and we won't hold it against you if you disagree.
I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to take comfort in the possibility of a higher power, but let's not abandon rational thought in the process. Granted, hope might be a slightly irrational emotion at times, but it's one thing to have hope, and another to be righteous in your non-disprovable beliefs. The latter should not be encouraged, and I would go so far as to say that encouraging it is irresponsible.
Entertainment is fun but you go home afterwards.
Like voting?
Politics wrecks lives, like a show where you are forced to live with the bad outcome
Ahh, like Cheaters!
Hmm, I'd be surprised if they don't get sued by Google for confusingly similar naming with YouTube, though perhaps your IP laws aren't as onerous as ours.
I sort of think the old west was a nirvana compared to present day. Laws and the enforcement thereof were pretty much relegated to actual crimes like robbery, theft, and murder, and while enforcement certainly left something to be desired, the upside of focusing on real crime meant real freedom to pursue whatever interested you outside of that. Of course, nobody remembers it like that; it's all "wild west" this, untamed wilderness that, where horrible things could happen -- as if horrible things can't and don't happen today. I suspect that similar things will happen to the internet, where people will extol the benefits of tighter control (less spam, phishing, and malware... maybe) while forgetting entirely the freedoms that went along with that lack of strict regulation and seemingly omnipotent enforcement.
It's entertainment not politics.
There's a difference?
Right, but one of those facts is relevant, and the other just demonstrates that you're a douche. I'll let you figure it out.
I don't exactly know the details, nor does anyone except the three people involved, but reports are that they asked him to stop after *protection* was removed from the equation, either accidentally or willfully.
Now I agree that regrets should not be treated in any way the same as rape, but busting a nut in someone without consent, in fact with their alleged dissent is pushing right up against the definition of rape by most rational standards. Just because I agreed to jump out of a plane doesn't mean I'll do it without a parachute. If I died due to equipment failure, that's one thing, but intentional disregard for my wishes, pushing me out of the plane without a chute just because I agreed to jump back when we were on the ground and you said you had parachutes, that's not just being an asshole; that's murder.
Again, I don't know what really went down, but if that's indeed what happened, then I have zero sympathy for him. None.
I would really like to know why I should be made to pay for wrongs that I had nothing to do with.
Why should you enjoy advantages that you had nothing to do with creating? Why should you pay the debt accrued by previous generations? Or pay out Social Security to the current retirees? Because we live in a society, that's why. It's the whole fucking point of cooperating rather than taking an "every man for himself" approach -- so we all have a decent quality of life, which in turn provides stability and prosperity for as many people as possible. When one group of people has been systemically oppressed, then yes, it's our duty to get them back on even footing, or some semblance thereof.
As for the rest of your argument, if you knew anyone who's lived on or grown up in a reservation, you'd know that most people aren't living in what most of us would consider livable conditions, let alone the lap of luxury. The casinos are a by-product of semi-sovereignty; similar to statehood, but with far fewer rights. At any rate, the reservations can pass their own laws just as the Great State of California can pass its laws. It's not exactly the native Americans' fault that the government that *you* established is displeasing to you. And if you take no credit for your own government, then certainly native Americans deserve even less. New Mexico, for example, overtly disallowed voting for native Americans as recently as 1961. And if being ruled by a government which was imposed upon you and in which you have no representation isn't reason enough for reparations, then I don't know what the fuck is.
Which ignores the fact that Comcast provides asymmetrical connections to 95%+ (100%?) of their customers. Perhaps not coincidentally, the downstream to upstream ratio is 5:1 (at least mine is).
Worse than useless, they make them counterproductive. Your first choice might be candidate X, and your second choice candidate Y, but voting for candidate X can (and usually does) result in your LEAST favorite, candidate Z, actually winning.
I concede that your distinction may be valid, but WikiLeaks isn't exactly hurting for attention in the first place. I admit I'm a cynic, but it seems to me that the only agenda served by Assange doing a talk-show is that of satisfying a personal desire for publicity and/or validation. Now you may be right that he's of the mind that drawing (more) attention to the issue at any price is worthwhile, but I think it's far easier to argue against a personal desire for attention when one avoids attention in the first place. PJ/Pamela Jones of Groklaw is a perfect example, refusing nearly all interviews, particularly televised, and letting her work speak for itself. If you are correct about Assange's motivations, then I would characterize his recent time in the spotlight as, at best, a miscalculated approach. Rather than drawing more attention to the issue(s), it only put more attention on him, as indicated by the fact that he's part of the discussion right now, along with the recent attention his personal life has received. Now it's possible his personal life would have been dragged into the spotlight regardless of whether or not he was complicit, but the fact that he was complicit doesn't help.
It is ridiculous, yes. It wasn't my intent to defend the position, just to explain it.
Well that, and (until recently) corporations didn't risk actual penalties like jail time by bending/breaking the law. You and me, well that's a different story.
No they don't. The *displays* use less power, yes, but the CPUs (and the system taken as a whole) use much, much more than they used to. There's a reason you don't see 250W power supplies anymore.
That's not a by-product of collateral damage; that is collateral damage.
As long as the attack comes in the form of battery by other people directly, and not, say, attack by the flu, or cancer, or AIDS. Those people can just suck it up and buy healthcare that's designed not to help them, but to turn a profit, amirite?
NOFORN is separate from other classification markings, and it's basically a formality. I don't know the history of the marking, but suffice it to say that it has little to no bearing on how documents themselves are handled, even with regards to disclosure to foreign entities. Most of the manuals for military equipment that we sell to foreign nations, for example, are marked NOFORN, even if they're otherwise unclassified. It's just one of those bureaucratic things that someone decides to add one day out of, no doubt, politically motivated "common sense." It might help somewhat, in some circumstances, when it's regarded, but for the most part it's just a semi-standard marking that nobody pays much attention to. It's not like everyone in government has a badge that says "I'm a foreign national!" (and there are many), so it's hardly enforceable without direct assistance from the people it's designed to "protect" against. If I had to guess, I'd say it originated during WWII or the Cold War, and there's simply no political motivation to discontinue its use.
In TFA, he mentions that he also sells through Amazon using a business name he won't disclose. To be fair, he says he offers much better service through Amazon because they have a low threshold for dissatisfied customers, but personally I don't want to risk giving him my money, which now rules out Amazon.